The byline simply says “Bob” as the name of the author. For all we know, some shitcoiner could have come up with this proposal.
Some of the arguments in favor of a hodl fee are not that bad. This could be a way to clean up dust and deal with dormant coins whose private keys have long been lost. The problem I see is that this won’t actually help with the security budget because you would be putting more coins in circulation, which would cause the price of Bitcoin to go down. Hodling is part of what gives Bitcoin value and this would discourage that.
People shouldn’t be charged fees against their will or be coerced into using Bitcoin any specific way. That is what this comes down to and why this will never succeed.
Topic: HODL_FEE BITCOIN HODLERS NEED TO PULL THEIR WEIGHT TOO - page 3. (Read 573 times)
Quote
Unfortunately, HODLers are not working. HODLers are expecting that others will be compensating miners so that the HODLers’ stake will maintain its value. In today’s design and perhaps inadvertently, HODLers are not living up to the bitcoin ethos.
This proposal is so wrong on so many ways i don't even knwo where to start.
Without getting into the proposal itself, I believe that the quote above does have some merit. People who hold bitcoins receive some benefit from the security that is paid for entirely by the people who transact (once the subsidy goes to 0). It seems reasonable to me for holders to pay for that benefit in some manner that has yet to be determined.
I saw this yesterday and the idea totally sucks. Sounds like some bull shit, socialist political party policy, some kind of unrealised gains tax.
Bitcoin Magazine probably have some failing mining farm or something. This idea is a total no goer, it’s disgraceful to be honest, zero chance this goes ahead.
Bitcoin Magazine probably have some failing mining farm or something. This idea is a total no goer, it’s disgraceful to be honest, zero chance this goes ahead.
A controversial long-form appeared on Bitcoin Magazine:
OPINION
BITCOIN HODLERS NEED TO PULL THEIR WEIGHT TOO
This proposal is so wrong: it messes with protocol in so many wrong ways:
Bitcoin protocols work just fine. Meeting with such a stupid proposal can wreck things in many unforeseen ways.
The sole idea of drying out the "dormant "address sounds like a communist quantitative easing on Bitcoin. We already have an ECB
Clearly, an April's fools on a wrong date.
OPINION
BITCOIN HODLERS NEED TO PULL THEIR WEIGHT TOO
Quote from: “Saifedean Ammous”
“The most subversive thing you can to with bitcoin is saving” ❤
This proposal is so wrong: it messes with protocol in so many wrong ways:
- Economic incentives
- Privacy Incentives
- Operational Risks
- Changing the protocol hinders the "store of value" proposal, which would be hindered by a change in the monetary properties of bitcoin.
Bitcoin protocols work just fine. Meeting with such a stupid proposal can wreck things in many unforeseen ways.
The sole idea of drying out the "dormant "address sounds like a communist quantitative easing on Bitcoin. We already have an ECB
Clearly, an April's fools on a wrong date.
Jump to: