+Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]

+ helo=mx.sourceforge.net)

+ by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)

+ (envelope-from <thomasv@electrum.org>) id 1YsTI2-000248-Ao

+ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;

+ Wed, 13 May 2015 09:49:22 +0000

+X-ACL-Warn:

+Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.196])

+ by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)

+ (Exim 4.76) id 1YsTI1-0003dU-4R

+ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;

+ Wed, 13 May 2015 09:49:22 +0000

+Received: from mfilter22-d.gandi.net (mfilter22-d.gandi.net [217.70.178.150])

+ by relay4-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D3ED1720A4;

+ Wed, 13 May 2015 11:49:15 +0200 (CEST)

+X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mfilter22-d.gandi.net

+Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.196])

+ by mfilter22-d.gandi.net (mfilter22-d.gandi.net [10.0.15.180])

+ (amavisd-new, port 10024)

+ with ESMTP id suAtf-Dmo-gE; Wed, 13 May 2015 11:49:13 +0200 (CEST)

+X-Originating-IP: 92.228.156.187

+Received: from [192.168.1.2] (x5ce49cbb.dyn.telefonica.de [92.228.156.187])

+ (Authenticated sender: thomasv@electrum.org)

+ by relay4-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 81C9E1720CE;

+ Wed, 13 May 2015 11:49:13 +0200 (CEST)

+Message-ID: <55531E19.3090503@electrum.org>

+Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 11:49:13 +0200

+From: Thomas Voegtlin <thomasv@electrum.org>

+User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;

+ rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0

+MIME-Version: 1.0

+To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>,

+ Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>

+References: <5550D8BE.6070207@electrum.org> <ce3d34c92efd1cf57326e4679550944e@national.shitposting.agency> <CABsx9T1VgxEJWxrYTs+2hXGnGrSLGJ6mVcAexjXLvK7Vu+e3EA@mail.gmail.com> <5551F376.4050008@electrum.org> <CABsx9T1h7p3hDr7ty43uxsYs-oNRpndzg=dowST2tXtogxRm2g@mail.gmail.com> <555210AF.3090705@electrum.org>

+ <CABsx9T3AxM3et7hgXx3+Rn3BvhQkF-Cn797sHcyztkMpD1UQmA@mail.gmail.com>

+In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T3AxM3et7hgXx3+Rn3BvhQkF-Cn797sHcyztkMpD1UQmA@mail.gmail.com>

+Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

+Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

+X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)

+X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.

+ See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.

+X-Headers-End: 1YsTI1-0003dU-4R

+Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Long-term mining incentives

+X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net

+X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9

+Precedence: list

+List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>

+List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,

+ <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>

+List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>

+List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>

+List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>

+List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,

+ <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>

+X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 09:49:22 -0000

+

+

+Le 12/05/2015 18:10, Gavin Andresen a =C3=A9crit :

+> Added back the list, I didn't mean to reply privately:

+>=20

+> Fair enough, I'll try to find time in the next month or three to write =

+up

+> four plausible future scenarios for how mining incentives might work:

+>=20

+> 1) Fee-supported with very large blocks containing lots of tiny-fee

+> transactions

+> 2) Proof-of-idle supported (I wish Tadge Dryja would publish his

+> proof-of-idle idea....)

+> 3) Fees purely as transaction-spam-prevention measure, chain security v=

+ia

+> alternative consensus algorithm (in this scenario there is very little

+> mining).

+> 4) Fee supported with small blocks containing high-fee transactions mov=

+ing

+> coins to/from sidechains.

+>=20

+> Would that be helpful, or do you have some reason for thinking that we

+> should pick just one and focus all of our efforts on making that one

+> scenario happen?

+>=20

+> I always think it is better, when possible, not to "bet on one horse."

+>=20

+

+Sorry if I did not make myself clear. It is not about betting on one

+single horse, or about making one particular scenario happen. It is not

+about predicting whether something else will replace PoW in the future,

+and I am in no way asking you to focus your efforts in one particular

+direction at the expenses of others. Various directions will be explored

+by various people, and that's great.

+

+I am talking about what we know today. I would like an answer to the

+following question: Do we have a reason to believe that Bitcoin can work

+in the long run, without involving technologies that have not been

+invented yet? Is there a single scenario that we know could work?

+

+Exotic and unproven technologies are not an answer to that question. The

+reference scenario should be as boring as possible, and as verifiable as

+possible. I am not asking what you think is the most likely to happen,

+but what is the most likely to work, given the knowledge we have today.

+

+If I was asking: "Can we send humans to the moon by 2100?", I guess your

+answer would be: "Yes we can, because it has been done in the past with

+chemical rockets, and we know how to build them". You would probably not

+use a space elevator in your answer.

+

+The reason I am asking that is, there seems to be no consensus among

+core developers on how Bitcoin can work without miner subsidy. How it

+*will* work is another question.

+

+