diff options
| author | Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au> | 2022-07-12 09:57:31 +1000 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2022-07-11 23:57:41 +0000 |
| commit | 1388114d1d10a1c294e4c7424d9c786be23a31a8 (patch) | |
| tree | 1da0b0c3178816130d0cde7bc51f8885d8c54330 | |
| parent | e8fc746481b870725549d7c269c4860ba07d4807 (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-1388114d1d10a1c294e4c7424d9c786be23a31a8.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-1388114d1d10a1c294e4c7424d9c786be23a31a8.zip | |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Surprisingly, Tail Emission Is Not Inflationary
| -rw-r--r-- | ec/bff28bd3cb0c57da2083761dada71b8bc8baee | 90 |
1 files changed, 90 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/ec/bff28bd3cb0c57da2083761dada71b8bc8baee b/ec/bff28bd3cb0c57da2083761dada71b8bc8baee new file mode 100644 index 000000000..d85e79059 --- /dev/null +++ b/ec/bff28bd3cb0c57da2083761dada71b8bc8baee @@ -0,0 +1,90 @@ +Return-Path: <aj@erisian.com.au> +Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::136]) + by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85D01C002D + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Mon, 11 Jul 2022 23:57:41 +0000 (UTC) +Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) + by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D1FC606C6 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Mon, 11 Jul 2022 23:57:41 +0000 (UTC) +DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org 4D1FC606C6 +X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org +X-Spam-Flag: NO +X-Spam-Score: -0.415 +X-Spam-Level: +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.415 tagged_above=-999 required=5 + tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FAKE_REPLY_C=1.486, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, + SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] + autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no +Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) + by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) + with ESMTP id S_87_zMKOvUe + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Mon, 11 Jul 2022 23:57:40 +0000 (UTC) +X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 +DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org 2ACA66068D +Received: from azure.erisian.com.au (azure.erisian.com.au [172.104.61.193]) + by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2ACA66068D + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Mon, 11 Jul 2022 23:57:40 +0000 (UTC) +Received: from aj@azure.erisian.com.au (helo=sapphire.erisian.com.au) + by azure.erisian.com.au with esmtpsa (Exim 4.92 #3 (Debian)) + id 1oB3HT-0000Rs-Nc; Tue, 12 Jul 2022 09:57:37 +1000 +Received: by sapphire.erisian.com.au (sSMTP sendmail emulation); + Tue, 12 Jul 2022 09:57:31 +1000 +Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2022 09:57:31 +1000 +From: Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au> +To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +Message-ID: <20220711235731.GD20899@erisian.com.au> +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii +Content-Disposition: inline +In-Reply-To: <YsxXCQihhSrYuIfS@petertodd.org> + <CAJowKgLDXr1ycGzCqRTe=iA_SQkchd1D4gtDD6o4gnK4dyn5dQ@mail.gmail.com> +User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) +X-Spam-Score-int: -3 +X-Spam-Bar: / +Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Surprisingly, Tail Emission Is Not Inflationary +X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 +Precedence: list +List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe> +List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/> +List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help> +List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe> +X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2022 23:57:41 -0000 + +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 step gives a +different result if lambda changes with t: +https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=dN%2Fdt+%3D+k+-+lambda%28t%29*N + +On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 12:59:53PM -0400, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote: +> Give me an example of an *actual* inflation rate you expect to see, given a +> disaster of a given magnitude. + +All I was doing was saying your proof is incorrect (or, rather, relies +on a highly unrealistic assumption), since I hadn't seen anybody else +point that out already. + +But even if the proof were correct, I don't think it provides a useful +mechanism (since there's no reason to think miners gaining all the coins +lost in a year will be sufficient for anything), and I don't really +think the "security budget" framework (ie, that the percentage of total +supply given to miners each year is what's important for security) +you're implicitly relying on is particularly meaningful. + +So no, not particularly interested in diving into it any deeper. + +Cheers, +aj + + |