Some people are skeptic about the transaction fee being enough incentive for mining activity to keep the network safe. In theory it should be enough since the price of Bitcoin should be really high by 2140. By then, unless new technology has been invented, I guess no one is able to transact on-chain anymore, not even rich people may see it viable. It will be a settlement network of LN activity only.
We'll never be able to find out how things look like by then, unfortunately, so we can only imagine the different outcomes and plan for it. Assuming Bitcoin is still the most solid place in crypto, I guess it's safe to assume fees will be enough for miners to keep at it.
I would like to see some model simulations to get some actual "Bitcoin-in-2410" numbers.
I think bitcoin should figure it out through its evolutionary path to handle the hypothetical situation in which mining is not incentivized by block reward and transaction fees should compensate for it.
Saying that only rich will transact on-chain in a hundred years later because fees will cost too much for ordinary transaction is nothing less than condemning bitcoin to death. I Knew Core guys endorse this kind of perception of bitcoin as a store of value only digital asset, a heirloom kept safe in cold wallets or deposited in central crypto banks.
I'm just surprised seeing you and your mates being a member of the Core team too
Anyway, bitcoin have been designed in the first place to be a monetary system not as a digital gold, whatever and this is the most bitcoin compatible scenario for the future:
Bitcoin will evolve to support hundreds of thousands of transactions per minute, prices will be really high and transactions suggest a fraction of one satoshi per byte and a total of say, 2-3 Satoshis as transaction fee for an ordinary transaction being 250 bytes long or so. Yet it worth 1-2 dollars per transaction and can produce millions of dollars of income daily while miners have invested enough to justify that levels of income by offering secure, fast and immutable transaction processing services to the public. No off-chain TP, no LN.
Please, explain how Bitcoin can deal with the world's demand for on-chain transactions while keeping said transactions fast, cheap and the network in which all of this happens decentralized, because I can't see it.
LN has problems of centralization at layer 1, there are valid arguments about it.
on-chain scaling has centralization at layer 0 (so this leads me to think this is worse than LN, irrespective of how bad LN can be), there are valid arguments about it.
The "Bitcoin for the rich only", is a valid outcome, assuming that the rich find an incentive in paying these big transaction fees. The blockspace will be there for anyone that can afford it to use. There would need to be enough transactional activity for miners to find it worth mining tho. You can claim mining rewards will be there, but in 2140 there will be no more mining rewards, so you need transactional activity. I wonder how often "the rich" (whatever qualifies as "the rich") would use Bitcoin at that point. There needs to be an equilibrium there to keep miners incentivized, otherwise hashrate would go down which would make it less worthy for anyone involved (the main point would be the security in which the wealth would reside, but this wealth is backed by high hashrate, and this high hashrate needs transactions to keep the miners spinning the wheel).