Author
Ahmed Barakat
Author
Share it
Facts Checked by
CryptoNews Editorial Team
Author
Eli Ben-Sasson, the founder of Zcash and the CEO of StarkWare, the company behind the Ethereum Layer 2 scaling process Starknet, publicly said that the Bitcoin 21 million cap of acquisition “makes no sense.” They also want instead that the networks set a hard cap on the amount paid each year.
Ben-Sasson’s biggest argument comes from a big loss. Because private keys are lost over time, the amount invested in those keys remains on the books but gets lost, causing the keys to become untraceable and go down the drain. His proposed reform: replace the fixed income ceiling with a fixed inflation ceiling. His actual figure was 4% per year, which he called “a reasonable rate of increase in population.”
The change is from the number of coins to the number of coins released per year, a difference that makes sense technically but also affects the management of anyone who tried to reduce Bitcoin in their environment.
Find out: The Best Trading Signals
Zcash Co-invented Bitcoin Correct?
Along with the losing argument, co-founder Zcash, Ben-Sassondeclared the security of Bitcoin mining as a major problem. The block reward currently stands at 3.125 BTC following the reduction of April 2024, and will continue to decrease over time, finally reaching zero near 2140. As the support diminishes, miners rely more on the money to stay rich, and networks that cannot support the participation of miners become progressively harder to attack. Ben-Sasson explained that this disaster is “very close.”
Don’t miss our $1,000 USDT Airdrop on ByBit
This part of the debate is of real interest among protocol researchers, regardless of whether one accepts the rest of Ben-Sasson’s proposition. Bitcoin’s long-term security strategy is an open question – the idea that the payments will fully recover the missing reward has not been proven to scale. Raising the issue does not mean admitting that the delivery cap needs to change.
A case of lost money is difficult to calculate exactly. We estimated that the investment costs of about 18.5 million BTC once the funds that cannot be reached forever are excluded, with Ledger putting the lost money up to 4 million BTC by the end of 2024. About 19.9 million BTC have already been mined, or about 95% of the total amount left, leaving about 1 million BTC. The attrition from key loss is real.
Note: The best crypto to change your profile
This Is Not Going Anywhere
The math of control is unknown. Changing the Bitcoin supply cap would require Bitcoin Regulation, a new client software, and implementation by miners, policy, and users. About 97% of Bitcoin nodes are currently following the current protocol. Changing the cap is not technically possible, but a fork that reduces the need would split the chain and probably cost a lot of money trying to save. Argument all around Bitcoin’s role as a strategic reserve asset it makes any idea of flexibility of availability politically dangerous in the current environment.
Community conflict is also worth understanding. The 21 million Bitcoins are divided into 2.1 quadrillion satoshis, which provides more than enough power to raise children at acceptable prices. Ben-Sasson’s argument, that “satoshis may return to zero in absolute terms if the great loss continues forever,” is technically correct but works only in terms of time tested in centuries, not in real estate.
What makes Ben-Sasson’s intervention stand out is not his ability to succeed. It doesn’t exist. What is important is who is raising the debate and why: a well-known ZK-proof expert is trusted in the Ethereum environment, citing the destruction of mining security as a way that can finally force a discussion.
Don’t miss our $1,000 USDT Airdrop on ByBit
