Is the basic research knowing that the miners will be paid 100% in transaction fees when all the coins eventually are mined? Some argue that it is sustainable because miners can choose which transactions they want to include in the block.
It is the fee market argument. It will work if there was only one coin. However, the people who argue for it refuse to acknowledge that there are other cryptcoins that are competing for lower fees in the fee market.
Bitcoin also have a second layer solution that competes with other Alt coins with lower fees and it is called the Lightning Network.
Bitcoin developers are not sitting on their hands, waiting for other Alt coins to take it's crown, they are constantly adding new features to compete with these coins.
Bitcoin miners have two options to generate a income now, 1. Mining for the Block rewards and also transaction fees, 2. Hosting a LN node and gaining some small income from that too.
However the Lightning Network also competes versus the miners for fees.
It is the fee market argument. It will work if there was only one coin. However, the people who argue for it refuse to acknowledge that there are other cryptcoins that are competing for lower fees in the fee market.
lower fees doesn't equate to equal security. if people want to opt for shitcoin security then they'll keep getting 51% attacked as we often see today. bitcoin's level of reliability is unparalleled and i think history shows there is a steady and growing demand for it, even within a sea of altcoins that are cheaper to use.
I reckon you should read my thread and try to understand the issue. This is not about the low fees. It is about the opposite. If fees are very high, there might be less people using bitcoin.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.49375019@Betwrong. In your fictional example no one wants to hold the other coin. That is not what occurs in our world, however.
In any case, part of why I am asking and arguing is because of grin's monetary policy.
Tail emission may be required for long term stability
Currencies with set supply are extremely experimental. Miners likely need incentives to secure the chain beyond only fees. Note: currency deflation is historically not a good thing.
Sound money has more to do with transparent emission than a capped supply
One of the pitfalls of monetary inflation in fiat currencies is governments can inflate the monetary supply on a whim. This has been used to disastrous effect throughout history. A non-sovereign, open source, consensus based currency solves this issue by making the emission policy well known ahead of time, and makes it difficult if not impossible to change. Based on this definition of soundness, Grin is just as much "sound money" as Bitcoin. Removing central authorities with arbitrary control is much more what makes Bitcoin important than the arbitrary amount of its capped supply.
Nick Szabo commented on Bitcoin's fixed supply that "a wide variety of supply algos would have worked, as long as they are predictable. […] Security/trust min[imization] is responsible for more of the value".https://github.com/mimblewimble/docs/wiki/Monetary-Policy
