pull down to refresh
The whitepaper did not specify any emission schedule or halvings.
Consider this scenario: If halvings happened every 2100 blocks instead of 210.000 (producing 90% of supply in the very first month) would you still consider it fair?
I think most would agree to call it instamine.
So 2100 is clearly not fair but somehow 210.000 is? What about 21.000? Fair-ish?
Halvings introduce distribution imbalances and they are not necessary part of the system.
Don't get me wrong: I think bitcoin is one of the most fairly distributed forms of money, but it's not perfect. The 'bitcoin not fair' narrative has some valid points.
try sherpa-onnx for better voices
You exchange fingerprints in-person so you can later attest that the signature corresponds with the person you met IRL.
Have you ever been in Argentina? There's a 5% dip here every single week (and, unlike bitcoin, it never rebounds back)
There is no free lunch. And the cost of losing access to your data can be much worse.
I can't fathom what sort of idiots just want to park their spare million on obscure risky assets instead of letting a certified professional handle it. Blind faith and money laundering.
https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=23247612&cid=64291186
What you describe as a Dogecoin's "feature" is plainly the core of it's scam: giving enormous advantage to the early adopters, creating an elite that benefits at the expense of the rest. It's basically a softer version of an instamine.