<p dir="ltr"><br>
On May 7, 2015 3:08 PM, "Roy Badami" <<a href="mailto:roy@gnomon.org.uk">roy@gnomon.org.uk</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 11:49:28PM +0200, Pieter Wuille wrote:<br>
> > I would not modify my node if the change introduced a perpetual 100 BTC<br>
> > subsidy per block, even if 99% of miners went along with it.<br>
><br>
> Surely, in that scenario Bitcoin is dead. If the fork you prefer has<br>
> only 1% of the hash power it is trivially vulnerably not just to a 51%<br>
> attack but to a 501% attack, not to mention the fact that you'd only<br>
> be getting one block every 16 hours.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Yes, indeed, Bitcoin would be dead if this actually happens. But that is still where the power lies: before anyone (miners or others) would think about trying such a change, they would need to convince people and be sure they will effectively modify their code.</p>
<p dir="ltr">-- <br>
Pieter<br>
</p>