Bitcoin's long-running argument over whether its 21 million coin cap should ever change resurfaced after the Bitcoin++ conference account recirculated Peter Todd's case for tail emission, a small permanent block reward meant to keep paying miners after subsidies fall to zero around 2140. Todd argues transaction fees are too volatile to secure the chain on their own, saying miners could be tempted to reorganize Bitcoin and re-mine unusually rich fee blocks, while lost coins would offset new issuance and keep supply near a ceiling rather than create open-ended inflation. Adam Back rejects that logic and argues any attempt to raise the cap would run into the same political resistance that sank BIP-110, the contentious 2026 soft fork that failed after two blocks this month with miner support near 2.53% against a 55% bar. The debate arrives while miners still receive 3.125 bitcoin per block and roughly 30 more halvings remain, and it has bled into broader arguments involving Michael Saylor, Bitcoin commentator Trey Sellers, Bitcoin Knots developers and former Ripple CTO David Schwartz over neutrality, security and miner incentives. Unlike BIP-110, a supply change would require a hard fork accepted by holders across the network, and whether fees alone can eventually fund Bitcoin's security remains unresolved.