Ideas for Managing Bitcoin Supply Beyond 21 Million

Some are worried about mining sustainability in the future. If fees aren’t enough to keep hashrate up, security could suffer. But changing that 21 million cap? Nah, most Bitcoiners are against it. It’s a symbol of Bitcoin’s strength as hard money. A change would probably scare off investors or even lead to a hard fork.

My first thought? Any change would be a major overhaul, likely a hard fork. But once the block reward is gone, wouldn’t miners just try to fill blocks to survive? Even if we stick to low fees, like 1 sat/vB, there should be some predictable rewards, right?

Why burn coins at all? Just lock your coins until you need them. We’ve got opcodes for that, like OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY. Even transaction locktime could work if you’re not keen on tweaking the BIPs.

Burning fees might just tighten rules for a soft fork. But if we tweak the rules on subsidies, we might be able to create a soft fork that keeps blocks valid even with a new subsidy model.

But hey, miners can always claim those fees later on. They’re called transaction fees, and they’re already in the system. Besides, we can use merge mining without forking the entire chain.

True, merge mining is a possible solution, but no need to create a new token. Plenty of altcoins already get merged mined with Bitcoin, increasing revenue.

Increasing capacity is a smart idea too. In the long run, miners will rely on fees. More transactions per block mean more fees, boosting revenue eventually.

You can batch transactions without enlarging the block size. Just use cut-through techniques. The ongoing debate around scaling in 2017 led BTC to prioritize second layers like Lightning Network, while others went for on-chain scaling.

Not just that. Decentralization concerns were huge too. If we blow past reasonable limits, we risk turning into another Solana. Plus, no one can create anything 'official' for Bitcoin, who’d do that anyway?

But we’ve gotta address the spam issue. Good that we’re talking about it. It’s definitely a problem that needs a solution.

Imagine your boss held half your salary for four years as motivation. What if value just tanks? Inflationary currencies usually lose value, competing with Bitcoin isn’t easy.

I think seizing stale addresses could be a way forward. Lots of untouched blocks from 2009 to 2010, maybe we start emptying them if nothing happens by 2089. This approach exists with banks.

I have a different thought a fixed tail emission with demurrage. It’s like inflation but with no actual new coins. You burn a part of each input based on its age.

You make a solid point. Merge mining and increasing capacity both have benefits for long-term mining revenue. But neither truly addresses the fee market dilemma.

More transactions do mean more fees, but that’s a double-edged sword. We can’t ignore the downsides either.

Let’s avoid using the word 'confiscating' with Bitcoin. It’s against the ethos. We need to respect all addresses, and maybe we don’t even need a tail emission.

Honestly, confiscation proposals sound terrible. If we raise the limit, we might as well just change it. Keeping the limit is key.

True, adaptation by states and companies is key. With places like Texas getting involved, mining should stay relevant despite challenges.

Thanks for clarifying the transaction fees. It seems cleaner to manage it that way without complicating things further.

People are drawn to Bitcoin because it’s not like traditional finance. We can’t predict how 2026 or beyond will be, but we can’t ignore potential changes.