If TIME itself is quantum (not infinitely divisible), quantum computing can never break cryptography. Fascinating discussion if you are interested in quantum computing, theoretical physics, and bitcoin.
There have been critics of this but it's as clear as the selling of the "AI" is more than just LLMs and probability language responses, with scraping of the internet and some digital pictures or movies. So stupid. We aren't even close to something like QC, and I think philosophically it's impossible even, just like AI. Also, think of it as a technology, Australia and I have said it, it's literally an invention to cause BAD things to happen. Further showing you it's totally BS and unworthy of any attention.
It is an interesting argument however:
Hash rate and energy consumption continue to increase.
What if fees do not pay enough of a security budget to incentivise mining? Then the users of bitcoin will either pay miners or mine themselves (nation states)
It may come down to nations or citystates competing for hash rate as a form of warfare:
Asset owners typically will pay to secure it. Fort Knox has a security budget to secure gold.
There will never be consensus to increase the amount of bitcoins beyond 21M. It is the only thing that makes it work as perfect money.
How will users (I assume by users you refer to Bitcoin holders) pay miners? Are you arguing that some sort of taxation mechanism will be added to Bitcoin? Or that whales will simply pay miners out of self-interest?
Wouldn't it make more sense for nations to just abandon the network entirely if defending it becomes prohibitively expensive?
This goes back to my first question. Are you suggesting that a means to compel security payments (i.e. a tax) will be introduced, or that Bitcoin holders will voluntarily start sending payments to miners?
But if miners essentially control the blockchain, and miners have a financial incentive to increase the cap, does that not make it much more likely?
While I disagree with your view that Bitcoin is perfect money, I certainly agree that absent a 21M cap, there is literally no argument whatsoever for Bitcoin.
yes, pay miners out of self interest...just like a military budget
It depends on the value of bitcoin, "expensive" is relative -- if it is hundreds of trillions in value, the security budget could exceed military spending
I haven't thought of how to impose a tax, but it is possible.
They don't have an incentive to destroy bitcoin, and they are only one part of the control...node runners and users of bitcoin choose what bitcoin is. If the majority of users reject a change, like during the blocksize war of 2017, miners capitulate or go broke.
exactly why it will never happen...why destroy your own value?