The idea that Bitcoin—long revered for its fixed supply of 21 million coins—might one day abandon its core scarcity principle has sent shockwaves through the crypto community. A recent proposal discussed at the Satoshi Roundtable has reignited debate: should Bitcoin stop its halving cycle and increase issuance to sustain miner incentives? While the suggestion may sound heretical, it stems from legitimate technical and economic concerns about Bitcoin’s long-term security.
This article dives deep into the origins, logic, and potential consequences of such a radical shift. We'll explore the arguments behind increasing Bitcoin’s supply, examine the role of Layer 2 solutions like the Lightning Network, and assess what this means for Bitcoin's foundational consensus.
The Spark: A Controversial Proposal
The controversy began when Matt Luongo, a developer known for his work on Ethereum-based projects (not a member of Bitcoin Core), proposed at the Satoshi Roundtable that Bitcoin consider halting its block reward halving mechanism. His argument? To ensure miners remain economically incentivized as transaction fees alone may not suffice in the future.
This idea was amplified by Litecoin mining executive Jiang Zhuo’er, who claimed that Bitcoin Core developers have long considered stopping the halving process—a move he sees as an inevitable consequence of their commitment to small block sizes.
“Core’s next goal is to increase Bitcoin’s supply, modify the 21 million cap, and stop the halving,” Jiang wrote on social media. “Don’t think it’s impossible. In 2013, who believed Core could successfully oppose block size increases?”
While Matt Luongo is not affiliated with Bitcoin Core, Jiang argues that Core may be using external voices to test controversial ideas without direct association—a strategic move to gauge community reaction.
👉 Discover how blockchain networks balance security and decentralization in evolving economic models.
Why Would Anyone Propose Increasing Bitcoin Supply?
At first glance, increasing Bitcoin’s issuance contradicts everything the network stands for: scarcity, immutability, and trustless value storage. But the proposal isn’t arbitrary—it arises from a genuine concern: miner economics post-halving.
The Miner Incentive Dilemma
Bitcoin’s security relies on Proof-of-Work (PoW), which depends on miners investing computational power to secure the network. Their income comes from two sources:
- Block rewards (newly minted BTC)
- Transaction fees
Every four years, the block reward halves. By 2040, it will drop to approximately 0.1 BTC per block. If block space remains limited (currently capped at ~1MB), and most transactions shift off-chain via solutions like Lightning, transaction fees may not grow enough to compensate for declining block rewards.
This creates a dangerous imbalance:
- Smaller miner revenues → reduced hashrate → lower network security
- Lower attack cost → higher risk of 51% attacks
- Potential for malicious actors (or even miners themselves) to profit from crashing the network
As Jiang Zhuo’er points out:
“If you prioritize censorship resistance over scalability, choose small blocks, and reject on-chain scaling, then stopping the halving becomes a logical necessity.”
In other words, if you refuse to scale Bitcoin on-chain, you eventually face a choice: accept weakened security or increase miner income through perpetual issuance.
Lightning Network: Savior or Threat?
The rise of the Lightning Network over the past year has been nothing short of remarkable. As more payments move off-chain, fees on the mainnet decline—great for users, but problematic for miners.
However, critics argue that this challenge is overstated. Several counterpoints suggest miner sustainability without altering Bitcoin’s monetary policy:
- Higher BTC Price: If Bitcoin reaches $100,000 or more, even low-volume on-chain transactions can generate substantial fee revenue.
- Large Transfers Stay On-Chain: Institutional settlements and high-value transfers may prefer mainnet transactions for finality and security.
- Hybrid Mining Models: Miners could run Lightning nodes and earn routing fees in addition to block rewards.
- Network Effects Boost Demand: Just as exchanges increased on-chain activity despite being off-chain systems, widespread adoption of Layer 2 could drive more users to deposit and withdraw—generating more mainnet transactions.
Ultimately, a highly adopted, high-value Bitcoin—even with small blocks—might sustain miners without changing its deflationary model.
👉 Explore how decentralized networks adapt economic incentives for long-term sustainability.
What If Bitcoin Did Increase Supply?
Even discussing supply changes challenges one of crypto’s most sacred principles: consensus through scarcity.
Bitcoin’s value isn’t rooted solely in technology—it’s anchored in collective belief. That belief includes:
- Fixed supply of 21 million
- Predictable issuance schedule
- Censorship resistance
- Digital gold narrative
Changing any of these could fracture trust.
The Risk of Consensus Collapse
If Bitcoin Core were to formally propose ending the halving:
- It would trigger a massive ideological split
- Likely lead to another hard fork, similar to BCH in 2017
- Undermine confidence in Bitcoin as an immutable store of value
As one community member put it:
“Bitcoin’s moat isn’t technology—it’s living in the minds of its holders. Once you break scarcity, you break faith.”
Would an inflationary Bitcoin still be “Bitcoin” in spirit? Or would it become just another programmable currency—losing its unique status?
FAQ: Addressing Key Questions
Q: Is Bitcoin Core officially proposing to increase supply?
A: No. There is no official proposal from Bitcoin Core to change the supply cap or halt halvings. The discussion originated from Matt Luongo’s independent suggestion at a roundtable event.
Q: Could stopping the halving actually improve security?
A: Theoretically, yes—if perpetual block rewards maintain high hashrate and deter attacks. But this comes at the cost of breaking scarcity, which many argue is central to Bitcoin’s value proposition.
Q: Has Bitcoin ever changed its monetary policy before?
A: No. The 21 million cap and halving schedule have remained unchanged since Satoshi Nakamoto launched Bitcoin in 2009. Any change would be unprecedented.
Q: Could Layer 2 solutions replace on-chain fees entirely?
A: Unlikely. While Lightning reduces mainnet usage, critical operations like channel opens/closes still require on-chain transactions—providing some fee base.
Q: What happened after previous major debates like the 2017 fork?
A: The community split into BTC and BCH, with BTC retaining majority support. This shows that ideological divides can lead to lasting fragmentation.
Q: Is this discussion just speculation?
A: For now, yes. The idea is being debated, not implemented. But raising it reflects growing concern about long-term miner incentives under current constraints.
Vision vs. Reality: What Was Satoshi’s Intent?
Bitcoin’s white paper describes a peer-to-peer electronic cash system—not digital gold. Some argue that a mildly inflationary model with robust Layer 2 scaling better fulfills this vision than a deflationary asset hoarded as a store of value.
Mainstream economics favors mild inflation to encourage spending and lending. In that sense, a sustainable fee market supported by ongoing issuance might align better with real-world monetary systems.
Yet Bitcoin has evolved beyond its original use case. Today, it's widely seen as digital gold—a hedge against inflation, not a daily payment tool.
So which path honors Satoshi’s vision more? A scarce, deflationary asset—or a functional, scalable currency with flexible economics?
Final Thoughts: Prepare for Possibility
The proposal to stop Bitcoin’s halving is not imminent policy—it’s a thought experiment born from real technical dilemmas. Whether driven by genuine concern or strategic positioning, it forces us to confront difficult questions:
- Can Bitcoin remain secure without rising transaction demand?
- Should ideology yield to practicality?
- And most importantly: what are we willing to sacrifice to preserve what makes Bitcoin unique?
While consensus remains strong today, history shows that unexpected shifts can happen. The 2013 block size debate seemed settled—until it wasn’t. BCH emerged when compromise failed.
👉 Stay ahead of evolving blockchain debates and understand future network risks before they unfold.
For now, the 21 million cap stands firm. But as halvings continue and adoption grows, the conversation around miner incentives will only intensify. Staying informed isn’t just smart—it’s essential for every holder, developer, and believer in decentralized money.