[paulgb]

I assume you're alluding to bitcoin cash. I don't see what it has to do with any of this, given that the aggregate transaction fees are not enough for big fish like the ones my article to migrate to at scale.

[intabli]

When you discuss miners, on a network DESIGNED to emit less Bitcoin and change to transaction fees down the line, it’s ultra important to note that this actually working vehicle exists and the same miners protecting the speculative vehicle are also protecting the actually working one. And when calculating for the working one, miners are set to be some of the richest businesses on the planet, even when ALL Bitcoin has been already mined, a 100 years from now, because of transaction fees.

Crypto is still very, very, early. I assure you of that.

[paulgb]

This article is about bitcoin miners. What I'm struggling to understand is, what does any of that have to do with bitcoin miners? Are you just wishing I'd pump BCH or something?

[intabli]

You mentioned it before that I did. And no I don’t want you to pump it, but answer the following yes/no questions please:

-) Did your article discuss miner profit from finding Bitcoin?

-) Did you mention that Bitcoin’s emission halves and will eventually end?

-) Did you mention that miners profit from including transactions?

-) Did you mention that transactions become the SOLE source of income once all Bitcoin is mined in around a century from now?

-) Did you mention that BTC is a version of Bitcoin which allows only for a maximum of 200k transactions every ten minutes?

-) Did you mention that the original design should allow for millions (and billions 30 years from now) of transactions every ten minutes?

-) Would such a huge number of transactions processed render miners more profitable than your calculation?

-) Would revenue from fees be much higher than the 1-2% you mentioned miners currently do?

-) Does omitting the above facts render your article possibly half-factual?