THIS IS NOT AN ALTERED SCREENSHOT
Michael Saylor, the unequivocal face and most influential person in Bitcoin today, posted a video from BlackRock with a really interesting disclaimer:
"There is no guarantee that bitcoin's 21 million supply cap will not be changed."
They're getting everyone used to this eventuality. When the supply cap increase happens, it will have "always been part of the plan."
And today, in 2024, people have the audacity to say Bitcoin wasn't hijacked. 🤦♂️
Add in a tail emission so that they never need to address the security budget issue.
That would require convincing the majority of miners to devalue their holdings by hard forking the chain
Could get messy
Actually no, it could be done via soft fork. And miners would be incentivized to do it since it keeps them paid long-term.
I did this well over a year ago, predicted Bitcoin would need one of several significant changes to survive. One of those was increase the supply cap.
I was actually most bearish about that being the path they take, but now I'm not so sure anymore.
I am curious why Bitcoin wasn't scaled or changed over time to better fulfill the role it chose as money.
I understand Dash is a fork of Litecoin, which is a fork of Bitcoin?
Each saught to be a better version of Bitcoin and nboth have succeeded, so why can't Bitcoin nchange to dopt the obvious advantages of Dash and Litecoin?
Dash is technically a fork of Bitcoin (and Cosmos?).
It's a long story, probably best to read Hijacking Bitcoin, which goes into it with great detail.
Here's the Saylor post if you want to see for yourself:
I understand that it "could" be changed with a hardfork, but at the same moment that happens $BTC credability will be ruined for ever.
.
I agree, which is why I was bearish that this would happen.
But when by far the biggest holders and backers of Bitcoin start mentioning it, it does give me pause.
Yeah its not like a random $BTC holder saying it. But should this not spark amother great debate in the $BTC community like the block size did?
