[trevelyan]

> I don't think it's an accident that analysis supporting unlimited block sizes assumes perpetual inflation instead of limited supply.

Agree, although this assumes that the free market cannot be trusted to regulate the size of the blockchain which seems possible with automatic transaction rebroadcasting. Are you familiar with the technique? Thoughts on it?

https://youtu.be/agppUdX9YvI?t=105

I'd be curious what you think about the approach. The basic idea is that forcing new and old transactions to compete for space on-chain pushes the blockchain into an equilibrium where data-in equals data-out. On either side of the equilibrium point block producers can increase their profits (and reduce costs) by moving towards equilibrium. So no need for a hardcap and no need for perpetual inflation.

[nullc]

That approach allows temporary censorship by miners to be converted into permanent coin loss (thus increasing the value of the attacker's non-censored coins). It also (by itself) doesn't produce an ongoing rate which is necessarily compatible with decenteralized operation of the network.