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
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
> 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
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
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 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
Sorting a seed alphabetically reduces entropy by ~29 bits.
A 12-word seed has (12, 12) permutations or 479 million, which is ln(469m)
/ ln(2) ~= 29 bits of entropy. Sorting removes this entropy entirely,
reducing the seed entropy from 128 to 99 bits.
Zac
On Fri, 8 Jul 2022 at 16:09, James
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
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 :
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
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 -
>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
> Point is, the attacker is thousands of UTXOs can also DoS rounds by simply
> failing to complete the round. In fact, the double-spend DoS attack
requires
> more resources, because for a double-spend to be succesful, BTC has to be
spent
> on fees.
I think I agree that effectively a
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
Thanks, Zac!
I indeed did get the napkin math very wrong. I now get around 10^30 total
possible phrases, which would take an impossibly long time to brute force.
So, it is less entropy but probably still sufficient for low-stakes usage.
James
On Sat, Jul 9, 2022 at 10:31 PM Zac Greenwood
I would say removing ordering from 12-word seed reduces 25 bits of entropy, not
29. Additional 4 bits come from checksum (12 words encode 132 bits, not 128).
My idea [for developing this project] was to feed its output to some kind of AI
story generator (GPT-3 based?) so a user can remember a
17 matches
Mail list logo
