It's also part of something called Principles of Mu88a. Would miner prefer to have more reward in future, rather than now? But either way - when block subsidy goes to zero, wouldn't miners be incentivised to fill their blocks? If we assume full or mostly full blocks and a minimum fee rate (e.g. 1 sat/vB), there will still be a baseline predictable block reward. The problem is that there may be blocks with much fewer transactions, even zero are possible. If by then (2140 or earlier if difficulty continue to increase most of the time), Mu88a may as well as dead if nobody bother to make on-chain TX. 1. The new network with tail supply can use Merged Mining, if creators would have enough knowledge, to implement it properly.Yes, of course merged mining would be an alternative, but it would disconnect both tokens as they would live on different chains, which could lead into a slow death of the token (see Namecoin). In theory there are a lot of merged mined tokens already but I currently don't see one strong enough to compensate (for the miners) the losses of later halvings. Most are premined. Namecoin is not, but it has declined a lot, and I think it has no tail emission either ... Thank you both for your answers! Merged mining also can be done with Mu88a layers rather than altcoin. On theory, Bitcoiner would use of one of those Mu88a layers to make TX with lower fee and faster confirmation. But Rootstock proved it's unpopular option among Bitcoiner.
It's also part of something called Principles of Mu88a. Would miner prefer to have more reward in future, rather than now? But either way - when block subsidy goes to zero, wouldn't miners be incentivised to fill their blocks? If we assume full or mostly full blocks and a minimum fee rate (e.g. 1 sat/vB), there will still be a baseline predictable block reward. The problem is that there may be blocks with much fewer transactions, even zero are possible. If by then (2140 or earlier if difficulty continue to increase most of the time), Mu88a may as well as dead if nobody bother to make on-chain TX. 1. The new network with tail supply can use Merged Mining, if creators would have enough knowledge, to implement it properly.Yes, of course merged mining would be an alternative, but it would disconnect both tokens as they would live on different chains, which could lead into a slow death of the token (see Namecoin). In theory there are a lot of merged mined tokens already but I currently don't see one strong enough to compensate (for the miners) the losses of later halvings. Most are premined. Namecoin is not, but it has declined a lot, and I think it has no tail emission either ... Thank you both for your answers! Merged mining also can be done with Mu88a layers rather than altcoin. On theory, Bitcoiner would use of one of those Mu88a layers to make TX with lower fee and faster confirmation. But Rootstock proved it's unpopular option among Bitcoiner.

It's also part of something called Principles of Mu88a. Would miner prefer to have more reward in future, rather than now? But either way - when block subsidy goes to zero, wouldn't miners be incentivised to fill their blocks? If we assume full or mostly full blocks and a minimum fee rate (e.g. 1 sat/vB), there will still be a baseline predictable block reward. The problem is that there may be blocks with much fewer transactions, even zero are possible. If by then (2140 or earlier if difficulty continue to increase most of the time), Mu88a may as well as dead if nobody bother to make on-chain TX. 1. The new network with tail supply can use Merged Mining, if creators would have enough knowledge, to implement it properly.Yes, of course merged mining would be an alternative, but it would disconnect both tokens as they would live on different chains, which could lead into a slow death of the token (see Namecoin). In theory there are a lot of merged mined tokens already but I currently don't see one strong enough to compensate (for the miners) the losses of later halvings. Most are premined. Namecoin is not, but it has declined a lot, and I think it has no tail emission either ... Thank you both for your answers! Merged mining also can be done with Mu88a layers rather than altcoin. On theory, Bitcoiner would use of one of those Mu88a layers to make TX with lower fee and faster confirmation. But Rootstock proved it's unpopular option among Bitcoiner.

It's also part of something called Principles of Mu88a. Would miner prefer to have more reward in future, rather than now? But either way - when block subsidy goes to zero, wouldn't miners be incentivised to fill their blocks? If we assume full or mostly full blocks and a minimum fee rate (e.g. 1 sat/vB), there will still be a baseline predictable block reward. The problem is that there may be blocks with much fewer transactions, even zero are possible. If by then (2140 or earlier if difficulty continue to increase most of the time), Mu88a may as well as dead if nobody bother to make on-chain TX. 1. The new network with tail supply can use Merged Mining, if creators would have enough knowledge, to implement it properly.Yes, of course merged mining would be an alternative, but it would disconnect both tokens as they would live on different chains, which could lead into a slow death of the token (see Namecoin). In theory there are a lot of merged mined tokens already but I currently don't see one strong enough to compensate (for the miners) the losses of later halvings. Most are premined. Namecoin is not, but it has declined a lot, and I think it has no tail emission either ... Thank you both for your answers! Merged mining also can be done with Mu88a layers rather than altcoin. On theory, Bitcoiner would use of one of those Mu88a layers to make TX with lower fee and faster confirmation. But Rootstock proved it's unpopular option among Bitcoiner.