O debate sobre Bitcoin permanecer fiel aos seus princípios cypherpunk esquentou, à medida que os críticos afirmam que o seu potencial de descentralização e anticontrole está desaparecendo. Enquanto isso, Peter Todd, um dos desenvolvedores da moeda, sugere a “emissão de cauda” como alternativa.
A base do movimento cypherpunk sublinha ferramentas tron de criptografia e privacidade para proteger os direitos individuais e promover uma sociedade descentralizada. Combina a palavra “cypher” como na criptografia, com “punk” como um símbolo de um espírito rebelde e do tipo “faça você mesmo”.
Este movimento desempenhou um papel importante na formação da Internet, especialmente em tecnologias-chave como blockchain e criptomoedas. A criação do Bitcoin também aproxima o movimento cypherpunk de seu objetivo de construir tecnologia para privacidade, segurança e independência digital.
Recentemente, a BlackRock questionou o limite fixo de fornecimento de 21 milhões do BTC. Continha um aviso: “Não há garantia de que o limite de fornecimento de 21 milhões de Bitcoin não será alterado”.
O CEO da Micro Strategy, Micheal Saylor, um dos maiores detentores de BTC, também retuitou o vídeo.
ESTA NÃO É UMA TELA ALTERADA
Michael Saylor, o rosto inequívoco e a pessoa mais influente no Bitcoin hoje, postou um vídeo da BlackRock com um aviso realmente interessante:
“Não há garantia de que o limite de fornecimento de 21 milhões de bitcoin não será alterado.”
Eles são… pic.twitter.com/Xg3sQP9BJw
— Joel Valenzuela (@TheDesertLynx) 18 de dezembro de 2024
Doubts have poured in over whether Bitcoin’s fixed supply remains as inviolable as one thought after BlackRock issued a disclaimer. Serious questions have been raised over the cryptocurrency’s capacity to bear long to its ethos due to the growing capitalist influence of corporate players.
Another critic on X, @sebp888, criticized renowned Bitcoin developers, including Adam Back and Peter Todd, for remaining silent about these issues. He argued that Bitcoin’s community should fight back against the perceived growing corporate domination.
Peter Todd retweeted the tweet with a screenshot showing a community note under Sebastian’s post. The note pointed toward Todd’s article from 2022: “Surprisingly, Tail Emission Is Not Inflationary.”
In this piece, Todd contemplated the threats Bitcoin could face when it ditches block rewards in favor of transaction fees for miners’ incentives. This could happen after all of the Bitcoin supply has been mined.
He warned that such a shift could be unstable. “To date, no proof-of-work currency has ever operated solely on transaction fees, and academic analysis has found that in this condition, block generation is unstable.”
He suggested an alternative like Monero’s implementation of tail emission, in which miners receive a fixed, small reward per block forever.
According to Todd, this model doesn’t cause inflation but rather creates a stable supply. He also said lost coins naturally balance out the continuously emitted coins. Thus, in the long run, coins are created just as fast as they are lost,” Todd said.
He explained it through mathematical modeling by which he proved that fixed rewards in combination with natural coin loss yield a stable monetary system.
One user on X, @LibreHans, doubted Peter Todd’s prediction. He said, “You think you can predict the future? How could anybody take you seriously?” Todd replied rather sarcastically that losing coins can only “magically” stop in the future.
However, his article also points out how difficult it would be to implement such changes on Bitcoin. Todd noted that a hard fork to enable it would likely mean not winning consensus from the large and diverse Bitcoin community.
“While Monero was able to get sufficiently broad consensus in the community to implement tail emission, it’s unclear at best if it would ever be possible to achieve that for the much larger Bitcoin,” he wrote.
From Zero to Web3 Pro: Your 90-Day Career Launch Plan