Peter Todd, a longtime Bitcoin developer, is pushing for a permanent block reward to keep miners incentivized after the supply cap is reached around 2140. The proposal, known as a tail emission, drew immediate pushback from Adam Back, who called it a trap. The exchange resurfaced this week after the Bitcoin++ conference shared Todd's talk.
The case for a tail emission
Todd argues that transaction fees are too volatile, and a fixed reward prevents miners from reorganizing the chain to capture high-fee blocks. He models lost coins, suggesting supply settles at a ceiling, so tail emission is a stabilizer, not inflation. He points to Monero's permanent small reward as an example, with inflation trending toward zero.
Back's warning
Back opposes the idea, calling it a trap and a false narrative. He compares it to BIP-110, a failed 2026 soft fork, and warns of false narratives. The comparison isn't casual. BIP-110 died after just two blocks, with miner support at 2.53% against a 55% requirement.
The BIP-110 parallel
Trey Sellers predicts a supply-schedule fork would fail as hard as BIP-110. But there's a key difference. BIP-110 was a soft fork, which miners can reject. Raising the cap requires a hard fork, needing all holders' acceptance. That's a much higher bar, and it's why the debate has no deadline.
Unresolved questions
Michael Saylor warns about protocol neutrality. Bitcoin Knots developers claimed the network faces attack in August. David Schwartz was involved in miner incentive disputes. The debate has no deadline, and no formal proposal has been submitted. Fees alone may fund the chain, but that's still unresolved. Any change to the supply schedule would require a hard fork, a heavy lift that needs buy-in from every holder. That's why this debate is likely to stay theoretical for now.
