it’s pretty impractical imo but something people ask for.
personally, seems more interesting to me for paying for security
bch the network's fate is inseparably tied to bch the token for the forseeable future. not sure using a hostile takeover as a means to "pay for security" will ever be a good idea anywhere tbh
not sure what you mean by hostile takeover or why it wouldn’t be tied to bch if i’m understanding correctly
which people? you can't trust a governance system where there's no accountability of the votes cast
I was thinking having a second contract where the miner (token holder) can get some amount based on the block number, maybe over time or based on current price. so basically we can pay for security beyond just native block reward
in a scenario where miners are primarily paid by a token that's not bch, nobody on the network would have any interest, even for 100 blocks, to keep bch the token's value anymore. it can go to zero and whatever the miners want to do with the network will keep going. bsv did this by their fiat private miner payment channel, their network has 0-sat fee transactions. there's a reason nobody's rushing to copy them.
are you talking about consensus changes? because that’s not where I’m going with this. same block reward, just voluntary ways to bolster it up, esp. when block reward ends
just talking about paying for security in different way than block reward and fees using miner created token
Обсуждают сегодня