Peter Todd reopens Bitcoin’s 21M cap debate because transaction fees make up just 0.5% of miner revenue
Peter Todd revived debate over Bitcoin’s 21 million supply cap by arguing that long-term proof-of-work security may need a small perpetual “tail emission” instead of relying only on transaction fees after block subsidies fade. He did not propose an immediate protocol change, BIP, or activation plan; he framed it as an open design question. Bitcoin miners currently earn new issuance plus fees, and subsidies halve every 210,000 blocks until they end. Todd said fee-only security at Bitcoin’s scale is unproven, while a low ongoing issuance could remain economically minor yet keep miners incentivized. The idea drew pushback from other Bitcoin voices. Dan Held said changing the monetary rule is dangerous because predictability matters. Giacomo Zucco argued a low tail emission might not destroy Bitcoin, but arbitrary changes to core monetary rules would be existential. Hodlonaut warned that weakening the cap’s social and cultural defense could be harmful. Todd has long acknowledged the main obstacle: any supply-rule change would require a disruptive hard fork and broad network support.
