A controversy pits Adam Back against Peter Todd over Bitcoin’s 21 million supply cap. Todd advocates for a permanent, minimal block reward after 2140, arguing that transaction fees alone will not sustain network security. Back dismisses this reasoning as a trap disguised as an engineering solution, drawing parallels to failed soft forks like BIP-110. Unlike a minor protocol adjustment, breaking the cap would require a hard fork with unanimous holder approval. No one alive today will see this debate resolved, as roughly 30 more halvings remain before the complete depletion of block subsidies.
Source: Read the original article
