From ff9528dfa7b74be30fbb08ca3b0cbb15cc23cfc5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Paul Sztorc Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2024 01:09:50 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] clarify Melvin quote --- _posts/2023-09-09-fees.md | 21 +++++++++++++++------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/_posts/2023-09-09-fees.md b/_posts/2023-09-09-fees.md index 6158d7f..84efacf 100644 --- a/_posts/2023-09-09-fees.md +++ b/_posts/2023-09-09-fees.md @@ -9,20 +9,29 @@ This is part of a series on [Tidwell's Questions](https://twitter.com/miketwenty ## The Question -If we look at the real world example of Monero: +Supposedly (acording to Melvin)... -1. Market cap = 3 billion -2. Daily fees = 1 thousand + If we look at the real world example of Monero: + + 1. Market cap = 3 billion + 2. Daily fees = 1 thousand + + A self-interested actor (or algorithm) would always take (1), over (2). -A self-interested actor (or algorithm) would always take (1), over (2). + The chain gets terminated, and users rugged. + +So, why will fees be enough to deter theft? It doesn't seem to add up! -The chain gets terminated, and users rugged. ## The Answer +Actually, it adds up just fine. Fee revenues will be way, way more than total coins "locked" to a drivechain. + +Secondly, even if it didn't add up -- that would just mean that Bitcoin L1 is doomed as well. + ### 1. If DC Breaks, Bitcoin Probably Breaks Also -Yes, Drivechain uses a "fees only" model -- L2 cannot print any new coins. +Drivechain uses a "fees only" model -- L2 cannot print any new coins. Eventually, Bitcoin's L1 will share this fate. That's Bitcoin's long run security model. So, if it doesn't work, we had better learn now!