> On Jul 10, 2022, at 07:17, alicexbt <alice...@protonmail.com> wrote: > Hi ZmnSCPxj, > > >> Thus, we should instead prepare for a future where the block subsidy must be >> removed, possibly before the existing schedule removes it, in case a >> majority coalition of miner ever decides to censor particular transactions >> without community consensus. >> Fortunately forcing the block subsidy to 0 is a softfork and thus easier to >> deploy. > > `consensus.nSubsidyHalvingInterval` for mainnet in [chainparams.cpp][1] can > be decreased to 195000. This will reduce the number of halvings from 34 to 14 > and subsidy will be 0 when it becomes less than 0.01 although not sure if > this will be a soft fork.
Soft fork, though a bit aggressive, as it would invalidate all existing blocks above the first new halving height block which claimed more than the reduced reward. Increasing the value would be a hard fork, as it would validate blocks that would previously have been invalid, as opposed to a soft fork, which invalidates blocks that would previously have been valid. e > I doubt there will be consensus for it because all the [projections and > predictability][2] about bitcoin(currency) would be affected by this change. > Maybe everyone can agree with this change if most of the miners start being > 'compliant' like one of the coinjoin implementation. > > [1]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/chainparams.cpp#L66 > [2]: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Controlled_supply > > > /dev/fd0 > > Sent with Proton Mail secure email. > > ------- Original Message ------- > On Saturday, July 9th, 2022 at 9:59 PM, ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev > <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > >> Good morning e, and list, >> >>> Yet you posted several links which made that specific correlation, to which >>> I was responding. >>> Math cannot prove how much coin is “lost”, and even if it was provable that >>> the amount of coin lost converges to the amount produced, it is of no >>> consequence - for the reasons I’ve already pointed out. The amount of >>> market production has no impact on market price, just as it does not with >>> any other good. >>> The reason to object to perpetual issuance is the impact on censorship >>> resistance, not on price. >> >> >> To clarify about censorship resistance and perpetual issuance ("tail >> emission"): >> >> * Suppose I have two blockchains, one with a constant block subsidy, and one >> which had a block subsidy but the block subsidy has become negligible or >> zero. >> * Now consider a censoring miner. >> * If the miner rejects particular transactions (i.e. "censors") the miner >> loses out on the fees of those transactions. >> * Presumably, the miner does this because it gains other benefits from the >> censorship, economically equal or better to the earnings lost. >> * If the blockchain had a block subsidy, then the loss the miner incurs is >> small relative to the total earnings of each block. >> * If the blockchain had 0 block subsidy, then the loss the miner incurs is >> large relative to the total earnings of each block. >> * Thus, in the latter situation, the external benefit the miner gains from >> the censorship has to be proportionately larger than in the first situation. >> >> Basically, the block subsidy is a market distortion: the block subsidy >> erodes the value of held coins to pay for the security of coins being moved. >> But the block subsidy is still issued whether or not coins being moved are >> censored or not censored. >> Thus, there is no incentive, considering only the block subsidy, to not >> censor coin movements. >> Only per-transaction fees have an incentive to not censor coin movements. >> >> >> Thus, we should instead prepare for a future where the block subsidy must be >> removed, possibly before the existing schedule removes it, in case a >> majority coalition of miner ever decides to censor particular transactions >> without community consensus. >> Fortunately forcing the block subsidy to 0 is a softfork and thus easier to >> deploy. >> >> >> Regards, >> ZmnSCPxj >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
