@vjudeu
> Miners can game this system by moving their own coins in 100% fees
transactions, just to produce more coins. You have one million BTC? No
problem, just move them as fees, and you just created 100k BTC out of thin
air, just because you are a wealthy miner.
Hmm, I believe you're right
Hi Peter, everyone
This issue has been discussed thoroughly in bitcointalk, general discussions
are more suited to forums, I believe, still
First and foremost, it is more than obvious that bitcoin block subsidy
algorithm is a total disaster, not just for the zero subsidy security
> If we actually wanted to solve the potential problem of not-enough-fees to
> upkeep mining security, there are less temporary ways to solve that. For
> example, if fees end up not being able to support sufficient mining, we could
> add emission based on a constant fraction of fees in the
1...
> Degradation
Remember, if hash rate declines (no sign that it will so far), the
net-effect is longer clearance times for large transactions.
It's not "failure" or "breaking"
2...
Certainly, if demand for blockspace isn't high enough to support clearance
then the *first *thing to do would
Fortunately halving in 2020 will be non destructive because it looks like we
will have higher difficulty in 2024 than in 2020.
Let's assume the worst case scenario: after halving in 2024, we have regression
of difficulty in 2028. Annual inflation rate in 2028 is 0.81%. Removal of
halvings in
While constant tail emission does in fact converge to 0 inflation over time
(which bitcoin's halvings do as well mind you), tail emission does *not*
solve the potential problem of mining rewards, it only delays it. A tail
emission of 200,000 btc/year (~1% of the current supply) would be
equivalent
On one scale you puts the Trust to the large stakeholders (why we avoid plenty
of small stakeholders, btw),
and on the other side I put game theory and well defined Prisoner's Dilemma.
Again: large stakeholders WILL NOT incentivised to mine, they will have the
hundreds excuses why not to
you can stop talking about the "security of the system" as meaningful
this has been discussed enough
if fees are not sufficient, clearance times increase and large stakeholders
are incentivised to mine
in the best case, fees are sufficient
in the worst case, it degrades to proof of stake
i'm
Hi, Peter
Thanks to human nature, still:
1. Bitcoin large holders are able to communicate with each other...
- and as a large bitcoin holder someone will very well understand that he
should run his Antminers at loss for goodness of Bitcoin network security.
But he won't communicate that - due
Hi Jaroslaw,
In the Prisoner's Dilemma the prisoners cannot communicate. In Bitcoin large
holders are able to communicate with each other. Also, prisoners need not make
an all or nothing decision in Bitcoin. Miners can join and leave the network
freely over time. You can change your decision
> New blog post:
> https://petertodd.org/2022/surprisingly-tail-emission-is-not-inflationary
Tail emission is inevitable, Milton Friedman says...
The key thing here in my opinion is to properly understand the seriousness of
the situation.
"There is no such thing as a free lunch" - is
Let's assume fees don't compensate low block reward.
And for example every 10 BTC holding needs to be secured by one Antminer S19
running.
In an ideal world every large bitcoin holder will run proper amount of ASICs
and run it at loss.
The holders of less than 10 BTC - will organize "group
> I'm pretty sure we will have a textbook case of Prisoner's Dilemma here.
no, there is no large payoff for betrayal
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
"large holders who perform zero transactions will still mine in order to
preserve the value of the network"
let me slightly modify the sentence below:
"The Prisoner's Dilemma is a standard example of a game analyzed in game theory
that shows why completely rational large holders might not
even with zero block reward and minimal fees, large holders who perform
zero transactions will still mine in order to preserve the value of the
network
this is not "mining your own tx", it is unrelated
this is "mining at a small loss to preserve your stake"
not only don't we need issuance or
If there’s no block reward, there’s no Bitcoin, so that’s moot. But setting
that aside. The business model of the state is to preserve the reward it
obtains from its own money. This is the reason for currency controls, which are
common.
e
> On Jul 20, 2022, at 03:17, Peter via bitcoin-dev
>
>And therefore this reduces to the simple fact that tx fees are what provides
>censorship resistance, whether you mine your own or others?.
What's the business model of the person who mines with the intention to censor
transactions when there's no block reward?
Regards
Peter
> On Jul 18, 2022, at 14:14, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> subsidy to directly tie miner revenue to the total value of Bitcoin
>> makes it not exactly how we want to incentivise a service that keeps
>>
>
> again, this is meaningless. if the fees aren't enough to
>
>
> subsidy to directly tie miner revenue to the total value of Bitcoin
> makes it not exactly how we want to incentivise a service that keeps
>
>
again, this is meaningless. if the fees aren't enough to keep bitcoin
secure for large transactions, then large holders are incentivised to mine
On 2022-07-10 07:27, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
The block subsidy directly ties miner revenue to the total value of
Bitcoin:
that's exactly how you want to incentivise a service that keeps Bitcoin
secure.
I'm confused. I thought your argument in the OP of this thread was that
a
> your proof is incorrect (or, rather, relies on a highly unrealistic
assumption)
The assumption that coin are lost ar a constant rate is not required. Tail
emission will asymptotically decrease the rate of inflation to zero, at
which point the increase in coin exactly matches the amount of coin
Rather than get bogged down discussing the technical details of how such a
change could even take place, I'll go ahead and say that modifying the 21M cap
is a supremely reckless idea. Your mathematical proof aside, the idea rests on
the unprovable premise that people will keep losing coins
On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 08:56:04AM -0400, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > Alternatively, losses could be at a predictable rate that's entirely
> > different to the one Peter assumes.
> No, peter only assumes that there *is* a rate.
No, he assumes it's a constant rate. His integration
On Sun, Jul 10, 2022 at 3:05 AM vjudeu via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
>
> Not really, because people that run full nodes, just accepted Segwit
> and Taproot. They had no choice. And in case of zero satoshis, it could
> be the same: you would see zero if you look at raw bytes, but you will
> see non-zero
I believe it's foolish to attempt objective definitions of things that we
define collectively, like "Bitcoin." The best any one of us can do is to
be consistent with a subjective personal definition. I believe most people
do that with the term "Bitcoin" and that the capped supply is intrinsic to
On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 10:00 AM Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> If you actually do the numbers on this, you'll realize it takes absolutely
> catastrophic black swan events that make WW2 look like a minor conflict to
> make
> even insignificant
On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 12:32:47PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> This isn't necessarily true: if the losses are due to a common cause,
> then they'll be heavily correlated rather than independent; for example
> losses could be caused by a bug in a popular wallet/exchange software
> that sends
>
>
> Alternatively, losses could be at a predictable rate that's entirely
> different to the one Peter assumes.
>
No, peter only assumes that there *is* a rate.
Regardless of what the rate is, if it is any value for which there exists
*any fixed central tendency*, tail emission is *evenually*
I think the discussion has some anecdotic interest but has zero relevance
as far as any decision making is concerned.
Any extension of block rewards after the current deadline should only be
done if and only if the community agrees that it is the only way to keep
the network secure.
The fact
I very much agree with AJ here. This is something I remember discussing on
Bitcointalk back in 2011: I find it highly intuitive that the amount of
lost coins is not a constant fraction of the supply, because people get
better at keeping their coins with increasing value, distribution and
On Sat, Jul 09, 2022 at 08:46:47AM -0400, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> title: "Surprisingly, Tail Emission Is Not Inflationary"
> Of course, this isn't realistic as coins are constantly being lost due to
> deaths, forgotten passphrases, boating accidents, etc. These losses are
>
> We want mining to be is a boring, predictable, business that anyone can do,
> with as little reward as possible to larger scale miners.
To reach that, miners should earn their block rewards inside Lightning Network.
Then, if you want to send some transaction, and you have one satoshi fee, you
> On Jul 10, 2022, at 07:17, alicexbt 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
Sorry, I made some wrong calculations in the last email. I think the change
would just be required in validation.cpp:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/a7f3479ba3fda4c9fb29bd7080165744c02ee921/src/validation.cpp#L1472
/dev/fd0
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
--- Original Message
On Sun, Jul 10, 2022 at 02:17:36PM +, alicexbt via bitcoin-dev 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
On Sat, Jul 09, 2022 at 09:59:06PM +, ZmnSCPxj 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
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
> Credit where credit is due: after writing the bulk of this article I
found out
> that Monero developer [smooth_xmr](https://www.reddit.com/user/smooth_xmr/
)
> also observed that tail emission results in a stable coin supply
> [a few years ago](
> Adding tail emission to Bitcoin would be a hard fork: a incompatible rule
> change that existing Bitcoin nodes would reject as invalid.
It won't, because we have zero satoshis. That means, it is possible to create
any backward-compatible way of storing amounts. And if we will ever implement
A parallel discussion is taking place at
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5405755.0
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Hello ,
Thanks for the correction - it however boils down to the same principle :
diluting other holders, possibly excessively, if you miscalculate the coins
"lost".
Which boils down to the same question again : How would you definitively
know that coins are "lost" or simply not accessed for x
Hi Peter,
Interesting blog post.
On Sat, Jul 09, 2022 at 11:31:26AM -0400, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 09, 2022 at 08:24:51AM -0700, Eric Voskuil wrote:
> > To clarify, price inflation is not caused by market production. Attributing
> > the observed lack of inflation (eg
>At present, all notable proof-of-work currencies reward miners with both a
>block reward, and transaction fees. With most currencies (including Bitcoin)
>phasing out block rewards over time. However in no currency have transaction
>fees consistently been more than 5% to 10% of the total mining
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 -
In Bitcoin we use the term “supply“ as a reference to the number of coins
minted. This colloquialism is commonly conflated with the economic concept of
supply, and then injected into a supply/demand relation as if it had the same
applicability. Economically supply refers to desire to sell,
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
On Sat, Jul 09, 2022 at 09:43:49PM +0400, naman naman wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This approach raises the obvious question : If someone hasn't had access to
> their coins in a long time (yrs, decades, however you want to define it) -
> and they wish to access/move them after such a time - isn't your
Hi,
This approach raises the obvious question : If someone hasn't had access to
their coins in a long time (yrs, decades, however you want to define it) -
and they wish to access/move them after such a time - isn't your proposal
simply taking away their ability to do so? Some might call it :
On Sat, Jul 09, 2022 at 08:24:51AM -0700, Eric Voskuil wrote:
> To clarify, price inflation is not caused by market production. Attributing
> the observed lack of inflation (eg fee %) to loss is an assumed relation.
My article is a mathematical proof that has nothing to do with observations of
To clarify, price inflation is not caused by market production. Attributing the
observed lack of inflation (eg fee %) to loss is an assumed relation.
Even if the amount of loss was known (which it is not), there remains an
assumption in the correlation of non-lost coins to price. Demand
On Sat, Jul 09, 2022 at 07:26:22AM -0700, Eric Voskuil wrote:
> > Due to lost coins, a tail emission/fixed reward actually results in a
> > stable money supply. Not an (monetarily) inflationary supply.
>
> This observation is not a proof of lost coins, that is an assumption.
To be clear, are
On Sat, Jul 09, 2022 at 04:57:57PM +0200, John Tromp via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > New blog post:
> > https://petertodd.org/2022/surprisingly-tail-emission-is-not-inflationary
>
> A Tail Emission is best described as disinflationary; the yearly
> supply inflation steadily decreases toward zero.
> New blog post:
> https://petertodd.org/2022/surprisingly-tail-emission-is-not-inflationary
A Tail Emission is best described as disinflationary; the yearly
supply inflation steadily decreases toward zero.
> Dogecoin also has a fixed reward
It started out with random rewards up to 1M doge per
> Due to lost coins, a tail emission/fixed reward actually results in a stable
> money supply. Not an (monetarily) inflationary supply.
This observation is not a proof of lost coins, that is an assumption. It is the
provable consequence of market, as opposed to monopoly, production.
New blog post:
https://petertodd.org/2022/surprisingly-tail-emission-is-not-inflationary
tl;dr: Due to lost coins, a tail emission/fixed reward actually results in a
stable money supply. Not an (monetarily) inflationary supply.
...and for the purposes of reply/discussion, attached is the
55 matches
Mail list logo
