Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable

Hi Anthony, > The issue is whether we should allow such > soft forks, or if the danger of losing coins to covenants and thus > losing fungibility and the freedom to transact is too much of a risk, > compared to whatever benefits the soft fork would bring. There are so many ways to lose coins

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable

On Fri, Jun 03, 2022 at 06:39:34PM +, alicexbt via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Covenants on bitcoin will eventually be implemented with a soft fork. That's begging the question. The issue is whether we should allow such soft forks, or if the danger of losing coins to covenants and thus losing

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable

@Peter Todd > The fact of the matter is that the present amount of security is about 1.7% of the total coin supply/year That's on the order of what I calculated : ~0.5%. I'm curious

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable

On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 8:29 PM Eric Voskuil wrote: > Value is subjective, though a constraint of 1tx per 10 minutes seems > unlikey to create a fee of 5000x that of 5000tx. This is of course why I > stated my assumption. Yet this simple example should make clear that at > some point a reduction

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable

vju...@gazeta.pl, what you describe is not possible without a hard fork, just like Eric said. There is no atomic way to move Bitcoin off of Bitcoin. You can use Bitcoin txns, or you can use trust/custody, or you can make a shitcoin. There is no way to actually divide or transfer sats to another

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable

> Simply fork off an inflation coin and test your theory. I mean, that’s the > only way it can happen anyway. That would be an altcoin. But it can be done in a simpler way: we have 21 million coins. It doesn't matter if it is 21 million, if it is 100 million, or if it is in some normalized

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable

@vjudeu > better to allow transaction joining.. to make fees more smoothly I'm not familiar with RSK transaction joining. However, I don't think this addresses the issues Corey brought up - which is that the appropriate amount of security (ie miner revenue) isn't linked with any bitcoin market

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable

Value is subjective, though a constraint of 1tx per 10 minutes seems unlikey to create a fee of 5000x that of 5000tx. This is of course why I stated my assumption. Yet this simple example should make clear that at some point a reduction in confirmation rate reduces reward. Otherwise a rate of

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable

On Thu, Jul 07, 2022 at 10:12:41AM -0400, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote: > We should not imbue real technology with magical qualities. That's much more fun if you invert it, and take it as a mission statement. Advance technology sufficiently! > The fact of the matter is that the present

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable

>Billy, > >Proof of work and the difficulty adjustment function solve literally everything you are talking about already. >Bitcoin does not need active economic governanance by devs or meddlers. >Please stop spamming this list with this nonsensical thread. > >Love, >John Sorry John, but this is a

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable

The relationship between block size and fees is not remotely linear. In a restricted environment, the fee rewards are much higher. **the ones moving more sats will win the top spots and will pay as much as is reasonable** Smaller blocks produce better security for the network both in

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable

It’s not clear how reducing block size changes the fee aspect of the block reward. Assuming half the space implies twice the fee per avg tx the reward remains constant. Any additional cost of processing more or less bytes would not matter, because of course this is just a cost that gets nulled

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable

> > We should not imbue real technology with magical qualities. > Precisely. It is economic forces (people), not technology, that provide security. Yes, and these forces don't prevent double-spend / 51% attacks if the amounts involved are greater than the incentives. In addition to "utility",

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable

> On Jul 7, 2022, at 07:13, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 07, 2022 at 02:24:39PM +0100, John Carvalho via bitcoin-dev > wrote: >> Billy, >> >> Proof of work and the difficulty adjustment function solve literally >> everything you are talking about already. > >

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable

It's the first time I read about the security budget and it definitely sounds scary to me. If it only takes a few million dollars to attack BTC and make it completely unusable for one day, I suppose it's only a matter of time before some hedge fund actually does it, using a short position to

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable

. > > My thoughts on this are that we will need to periodically make some > software change to adjust a *target amount of investment in security*, > because the > I think perhaps you're underestimating the degree to which utility can be added to the main chain to encourage fees. For example,

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable

On Thu, Jul 07, 2022 at 02:24:39PM +0100, John Carvalho via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Billy, > > Proof of work and the difficulty adjustment function solve literally > everything you are talking about already. Unfortunately you are quite wrong: the difficulty adjustment function merely adjusts for

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable

e: Wed, 6 Jul 2022 17:46:15 -0700 > From: Billy Tetrud > To: vju...@gazeta.pl, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion > > Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable > Message-ID: > 3g...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charse

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable

> The primary mechanism we have to change how much security we have is to > change the block size, which changes how much fees miners can collect each > block. This isn't a linear thing. Its probably a parabola with a peak, where > at that peak, making the block either smaller and larger would

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable

@Corey > Currently there is zero feedback in the Bitcoin system between what we might think is the optimum amount of security and what actually exists. I basically agree with this. The pedantic part of my mind does want to point out that the link between block subsidy and bitcoin's price does

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable

> If the only realistic (fair, efficient & proportionate) way to pay for > Bitcoin's security was by having some inflation scheme that violated the 21 > million cap, then agreeing to break the limit would probably be what makes > sense, and in the economic interest of its users and holders.

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable

>Bitcoin's finite supply is the main argument for people investing in it, the whole narrative around bitcoin is based on its finite supply. While it has its flaws and basically condemns bitcoin to be only used as a store >of value (and not as a currency), I don't think it's worth questioning it at

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable

Bitcoin's finite supply is the main argument for people investing in it, the whole narrative around bitcoin is based on its finite supply. While it has its flaws and basically condemns bitcoin to be only used as a store of value (and not as a currency), I don't think it's worth questioning it at

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable

On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 12:44:11PM +0200, Kate Salazar via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > On an idealistic level, I agree with Keagan that it would make sense to > > have "a balance of fees to that effect". I think doing that would be > > technically/economically optimal. However, I think there is an

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable

@Alex > The person who obtained greater economic utility from their two transactions. That is not the case. The economic utility gained by their two transactions is probably almost entirely related to something other than bitcoin - the nature of the specific transactions themselves. The value

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable

> > Anyway, demurrage and inflation have identical economic properties. They're >> both a tax on savings. The only difference is the way that tax is >> implemented. > > the fact that a conversation on inflation is continuing without being ignored is probably an indicator that the utility of

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable

Hey On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 10:43 AM Billy Tetrud via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > @Eric > > People who transact are realizing the benefit of money - the avoidance > of barter costs. > > I'm very confident you're incorrect that holders don't receive any benefit

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable

On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 7:22 PM Peter Todd wrote: > On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 12:23:40PM -0400, Alex Lee via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > > > Those who never transact, never realize any benefit. > > > > > > While that's true, its not relevant and basically a red herring. You > need > > > to compare

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable

On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 12:23:40PM -0400, Alex Lee via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > > Those who never transact, never realize any benefit. > > > > While that's true, its not relevant and basically a red herring. You need > > to compare those who transact often and rarely hold, to those who hold a > >

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable

On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 10:55:56PM -0500, Billy Tetrud wrote: > @Eric > > People who transact are realizing the benefit of money - the avoidance > of barter costs. > > I'm very confident you're incorrect that holders don't receive any benefit > and you're certainly not correct that every spend

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable

On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 4:43 AM Billy Tetrud via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > @Eric > > People who transact are realizing the benefit of money - the avoidance > of barter costs. > > I'm very confident you're incorrect that holders don't receive any benefit > and

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable

@Eric > People who transact are realizing the benefit of money - the avoidance of barter costs. I'm very confident you're incorrect that holders don't receive any benefit and you're certainly not correct that every spend is receiving the same benefit. As I'm sure you're aware, one of the primary

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable

On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 01:00:07PM -0600, Keagan McClelland via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > The PoW security of Bitcoin benefits all Bitcoin users, proportional to > the > value of BTC they hold; if Bitcoin blocks aren't reliably created the value > of > *all* BTC goes down. It doesn't make sense for

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable

> On Jun 21, 2022, at 12:28, Keagan McClelland via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > >  > > The PoW security of Bitcoin benefits all Bitcoin users, proportional to the > value of BTC they hold; if Bitcoin blocks aren't reliably created the value of > *all* BTC goes down. It doesn't make sense for the

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable

> The PoW security of Bitcoin benefits all Bitcoin users, proportional to the value of BTC they hold; if Bitcoin blocks aren't reliably created the value of *all* BTC goes down. It doesn't make sense for the entire cost of that security to be paid for on a per-tx basis. And there's a high chance

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable

On Sun, Jun 19, 2022 at 2:04 PM Manuel Costa via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > if we start seeing issues with block rewards being too low to maintain > acceptable security, we're going to have multiple solutions being > implemented for it, and definitely a hard

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable

Hey On Sun, Jun 19, 2022 at 8:04 PM Manuel Costa via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > "Long time listener, first time caller". Just sharing my 2 sats: > > While I find it stimulating, I think this discussion (and other similar > doom-like scenarios) is somewhat

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable

"Long time listener, first time caller". Just sharing my 2 sats: While I find it stimulating, I think this discussion (and other similar doom-like scenarios) is somewhat irrelevant in practice. When the time comes and if we start seeing issues with block rewards being too low to maintain

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable

On Sun, Jun 12, 2022 at 07:16:49PM +, alicexbt wrote: > Hi Peter, > > > Only because the block reward goes away. If it was made to continue > > indefinitely - most likely with an inflation hard fork - demand for block > > space > > would not be critical to Bitcoin's security. > > > I am

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable

Hi Peter, > Only because the block reward goes away. If it was made to continue > indefinitely - most likely with an inflation hard fork - demand for block > space > would not be critical to Bitcoin's security. I am not completely against your proposal although 100% sure this will not have

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable

Even if demand for block space is currently not needed to pay for security due to the block rewards, demand for BTC itself is needed for those rewards to be worth anything. Bitcoin, as a proof of work system, is only secure at scale. Therefore continued growth and user adoption are both critical

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable

Yes Although I'm guessing most would agree that would be worse. I certainly would choose to add fee generating features over inflation Probably most other people would too On Sat, Jun 11, 2022, 11:36 PM Peter Todd wrote: > On Mon, Jun 06, 2022 at 09:02:18AM -0400, Erik Aronesty via

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable

On Mon, Jun 06, 2022 at 09:02:18AM -0400, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Maintaining the security of the protocol is squarely the responsibility of > the Bitcoin software and the core developers > > Continued demand for block space is critical for Bitcoin's security. Only because the

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable

@jorge > Who do you mean by "the non technical folks"? I mean people that don't have software engineering skills. This is the twittersphere, reddit, most podcasters, etc etc. This is the vast majority of the bitcoin community, and the vast majority of.. everyone. > You don't include alicexbt or

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable

I think Jorge's request for specifics is reasonable. I agree that we can raise the level of discussion. Each claim about how good or bad a specific BIP is should say why on the technical merits. Comments on prior claims may expose misinformation, expose "trust me" authority, or point out other

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable

Who do you mean by "the non technical folks"? You don't include alicexbt or yourself as a "technical folk", do you? On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 8:38 AM Billy Tetrud via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Wholeheartedly agree with you alicexbt. There are no technical issues

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable

Wholeheartedly agree with you alicexbt. There are no technical issues that have been shown that I'm aware of. Once the non-technical folks have time to discuss it and realize that, I'm hopeful things will move forward. Perhaps we can learn from this and figure out how to better catch the attention

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable

ends funding. > > Please stop making noise about CTV, this is not a place for spamming. > > -- > John Carvalho > > > > On Sat, Jun 4, 2022 at 1:00 PM < > bitcoin-dev-requ...@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> >> Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2022

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable

Hi Jorge, Misinformation is false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive. A combination of 'misleading' and 'information'. Here are a few examples and I am sure I missed a lot of others but its difficult for me to keep a track of everything: 1)

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable

"Some people say CTV is contentious, but they're spreading misinformation"? Really? Seriously? Come on, guys, we can do better than nina jankovich and the "fact checkers". Please, rise the bar. On Fri, Jun 3, 2022, 19:44 alicexbt via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable

friends think it is totally cool and might make more people > like you or give your friends funding. > > Please stop making noise about CTV, this is not a place for spamming. > > -- > > John Carvalho > > On Sat, Jun 4, 2022 at 1:00 PM > wrote: > >>

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable

ople like you or give your friends funding. > > Please stop making noise about CTV, this is not a place for spamming. > > -- > John Carvalho > > > > On Sat, Jun 4, 2022 at 1:00 PM < > bitcoin-dev-requ...@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> >> Date

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable

lease stop making noise about CTV, this is not a place for spamming. -- John Carvalho On Sat, Jun 4, 2022 at 1:00 PM < bitcoin-dev-requ...@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2022 18:39:34 + > From: alicexbt > To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion > &

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable

Totally agree. I couldn't agree more. On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 3:44 PM alicexbt via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Note: This email is an opinion and not an attack on bitcoin > > Covenants on bitcoin will eventually be implemented with a soft fork. CTV > is the

[bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable

Note: This email is an opinion and not an attack on bitcoin Covenants on bitcoin will eventually be implemented with a soft fork. CTV is the easiest and best possible way OP_TX looks good as well. Apart from the technical merits, covenants will improve a few other things: - Developers can