I don't know but I expect it to be proportional to market cap, not getting cut in half forever.
>The original intention was to fund the network entirely off fees eventually.
I think this was a half-baked idea from satoshi. My theory is that the bitcoin distribution was chosen to avoid having to decide on any "arbitrary" emission schedule. Bitcoin basically acts an experiment to determine what level of coinbase reward is safe, through bisection.
>if a genuine 51% attack were to happen people would be highly motivated to counter it. That may involve bringing more compute to the network, or even changing the protocol.
Who? Just bitcoin users in general? There is no group that stands to gain, it's sort of a tragedy of the commons situation.
Bitcoin's security is tied to ASIC hardware. You can't just spin up a couple desktops at home to protect the network anymore.
>A fallback proof of work algorithm that requires more generalised hardware would work well.
I think monero already does this. Look up "RandomX" it is amazing to read about. But the problem is that these CPU-mined coins are even easier to attack because you can easily rent hardware or use a botnet to do a 51% attack. Whereas with bitcoin you need to buy a bunch of ASICs which would be devalued by such an attack.
>Ultimately the network is decided by the consensus of the users. Accepting signed blocks is the consensus.
I was going to write a long response to this, but in a nutshell classical consensus and PoS sucks.
I don't know but I expect it to be proportional to market cap, not getting cut in half forever.
>The original intention was to fund the network entirely off fees eventually.
I think this was a half-baked idea from satoshi. My theory is that the bitcoin distribution was chosen to avoid having to decide on any "arbitrary" emission schedule. Bitcoin basically acts an experiment to determine what level of coinbase reward is safe, through bisection.
>if a genuine 51% attack were to happen people would be highly motivated to counter it. That may involve bringing more compute to the network, or even changing the protocol.
Who? Just bitcoin users in general? There is no group that stands to gain, it's sort of a tragedy of the commons situation.
Bitcoin's security is tied to ASIC hardware. You can't just spin up a couple desktops at home to protect the network anymore.
>A fallback proof of work algorithm that requires more generalised hardware would work well.
I think monero already does this. Look up "RandomX" it is amazing to read about. But the problem is that these CPU-mined coins are even easier to attack because you can easily rent hardware or use a botnet to do a 51% attack. Whereas with bitcoin you need to buy a bunch of ASICs which would be devalued by such an attack.
>Ultimately the network is decided by the consensus of the users. Accepting signed blocks is the consensus.
I was going to write a long response to this, but in a nutshell classical consensus and PoS sucks.