diff options
| author | Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org> | 2015-08-10 14:12:12 -0700 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2015-08-10 21:14:21 +0000 |
| commit | 36b443639b4bf8f8f14bd6c516ba35b34460b4ea (patch) | |
| tree | 8051fd3cb6f84f8a4f56ed948c8ca1f19b47acb1 | |
| parent | 1afa1cee3a1ee6c8215eea2513b963a442f72312 (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-36b443639b4bf8f8f14bd6c516ba35b34460b4ea.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-36b443639b4bf8f8f14bd6c516ba35b34460b4ea.zip | |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Off-chain transactions and miner fees
| -rw-r--r-- | 9e/16b9aaab64ba2e7086b4c75bdb6ba569961a5e | 194 |
1 files changed, 194 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/9e/16b9aaab64ba2e7086b4c75bdb6ba569961a5e b/9e/16b9aaab64ba2e7086b4c75bdb6ba569961a5e new file mode 100644 index 000000000..0b6c54584 --- /dev/null +++ b/9e/16b9aaab64ba2e7086b4c75bdb6ba569961a5e @@ -0,0 +1,194 @@ +Return-Path: <eric@voskuil.org> +Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org + [172.17.192.35]) + by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E6394D3 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Mon, 10 Aug 2015 21:14:21 +0000 (UTC) +X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 +Received: from mail-pa0-f54.google.com (mail-pa0-f54.google.com + [209.85.220.54]) + by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B935816F + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Mon, 10 Aug 2015 21:14:20 +0000 (UTC) +Received: by pabyb7 with SMTP id yb7so114092701pab.0 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Mon, 10 Aug 2015 14:14:20 -0700 (PDT) +X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; + d=1e100.net; s=20130820; + h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to + :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type; + bh=gv2doWDwwBscPtNma0OfVMzd3K+CufL41YdK3/s8QdU=; + b=XhDzPGQTgcmyZUgfk042uZhkxLWxZY77+VxEZ/xmQETM4zSQSLtuf7rJ1vCllYqCvU + xqRFqUQMvQYKzbZb1P71+OijgSlKIntBo41CNsDSAS9T7nlr4SmQNtORE5G2sS7TwHJd + ms+YuFsoeUhdMV9olndLh2P975CcDBq7SbLXbY2I2e6yQ5kaFhwlmb9ZNqkuOYdPSEu9 + SkfsI4CEbxPsWsYNncjwteJGoFHWnXdqFObKXw19WWF5sSL2TnOBrMvk9GUS4aWdCsMc + Q0HvS+SL+tMJrpjak8Wtv1CopqCvRzO0rPE74BwziYDuvNatXU3o35EZ01XtyDJrPAy2 + Zr/Q== +X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlAcAMh13TfsyaE9aRHEqrY4P9IzUhgGEazYwX/MU/3vuFYT833eMGDKH/YsyZp4+MjaFrd +X-Received: by 10.66.197.234 with SMTP id ix10mr47808400pac.152.1439241260493; + Mon, 10 Aug 2015 14:14:20 -0700 (PDT) +Received: from [10.0.1.13] (c-73-225-134-208.hsd1.wa.comcast.net. + [73.225.134.208]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id + rp12sm16870045pbb.65.2015.08.10.14.14.19 + (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); + Mon, 10 Aug 2015 14:14:19 -0700 (PDT) +Message-ID: <55C913AC.7030607@voskuil.org> +Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 14:12:12 -0700 +From: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org> +User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; + rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0 +MIME-Version: 1.0 +To: Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>, bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +References: <55C7D234.1040306@bitmarkets.net> <20150810185031.GA31610@navy> +In-Reply-To: <20150810185031.GA31610@navy> +Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; + protocol="application/pgp-signature"; + boundary="VjItdAxLj4KAqmBkN8TJc0kxp49I53dMD" +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,LOTS_OF_MONEY, + RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 +X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on + smtp1.linux-foundation.org +Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Off-chain transactions and miner fees +X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 +Precedence: list +List-Id: Bitcoin Development 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, 10 Aug 2015 21:14:21 -0000 + +This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) +--VjItdAxLj4KAqmBkN8TJc0kxp49I53dMD +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable + +Hi Anthony, + +No belief can be shown to be universally held, and an appeal to +authority is also a logical fallacy for good reason. + +The blog you quote is littered with flawed economic ideas. It's become a +pet peeve of mine that people refer to mining (and/or validation) as a +"tragedy of the commons" problem, or a "public good" subject to a "free +rider" problem. This betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of both +money and Bitcoin. + +I'm not commenting on the other merits of your argument or others in +this thread, I mean just to dispute the validity of this particular +reference. Even the portion you quoted is quite absurd: + +>> "We=E2=80=99re not spending so much on mining because we really need i= +t. +>> It=E2=80=99s because printing money distorts behaviour." + +We don't "really need" to prevent "printing money" - Bitcoin could +somehow get by without that constraint? Preventing the printing of money +is the only reason that Bitcoin exists. + +The tragedy of the commons scenario properly applies only to property +controlled by the state. In the quoted blog the analogy is so misapplied +that it fundamentally misrepresents the forces at work in Bitcoin. + +Bitcoin is not at all "like a lighthouse". State run lighthouses are +financed via taxation. That may be taxation of anything, whether or not +related to the shipping the lighthouse purports to protect. It may in +fact protect no shipping at all, since payment is generally completely +divorced from benefit, and the benefits may be completely divorced from +shipping. For example, preservation of jobs for lighthouse keepers and +the Coast Guard, or even nostalgia. Just as with a private grazing +field, a truly private lighthouse would not have a "commons problem" at a= +ll. + +Bitcoin mining is financed by a fixed schedule of inflation and +transaction fees. State inflation is a tax on all holders of currency +and a form of default on state debt. This and other taxes fund +lighthouses. A tax is the seizure of someone else's property through +force. Bitcoin inflation is predictable, so the inflation cost is +factored in to its value before it is acquired, according to the +depreciation schedule, just like bond valuation for example. This means +it is NOT a tax, is merely a cost that is paid to miners for use of +their security services. + +Bitcoin transaction "fees" are not fees in the state use-fee (taxation) +sense, since the fees are priced based on voluntary trade. The blog +misinterprets who is paying the cost of securing a transaction when it +claims, "it's the sender who pays." Both parties to a transaction bear +the cost of using any given medium of exchange. If the receiver is +concerned about double spending risk, it's the sender who will have to +compensate with time and/or money. But this is just as much a cost to +the receiver as it has raised the effective price of his sales with the +difference in money accruing to the third party. + +Finally, transaction fees *are* mining contracts. Creating *another* +system of mining contracts initiated by a receiver would do nothing to +change the economics, but it would significantly complicate the +implementation (raising costs generally). The cost of paying a mining +contract would of course be paid by the sender, in terms of increased +price charged by the receiver. + +I believe that a fundamental misunderstanding of the important +distinction between voluntary trade and state-controlled trade is +underpinning a lot of confusion and misunderstanding with respect to the +block size debate. Bitcoin does not have a commons problem specifically +because it's designed to resist state control. It's only in the loss of +that independence that such a problem would arise (and effectively kill +Bitcoin altogether). + +Ironically the desire to fix a non-existent commons problem in Bitcoin +seems to be a driving force behind what may in fact weaken its only +defence against eventually becoming a commons. + +e + + +On 08/10/2015 11:50 AM, Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev wrote: +> On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 12:20:36AM +0200, info--- via bitcoin-dev wrote= +: +>> one argument I often read on this mailing list is that it's essential = +to +>> reward miners with transaction fees at some point to secure the networ= +k. +>=20 +> That's not a universally held belief. See for example: +>=20 +> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Funding_network_security#Alternatives +> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D157141.0 +>=20 +> It's also not clear to me what amount of security people actually "want= +". +> In late May, Mike Hearn wrote: +>=20 +>> "Currently the Bitcoin community is being effectively taxed about +>> $832,000 per day ... just to support mining! [...] +>>=20 +>> We=E2=80=99re not spending so much on mining because we really need = +it. It=E2=80=99s +>> because printing money distorts behaviour." +>=20 +> -- https://medium.com/@octskyward/hashing-7d04a887acc8 + + +--VjItdAxLj4KAqmBkN8TJc0kxp49I53dMD +Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" +Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature +Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" + +-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- +Version: GnuPG v1 + +iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVyROsAAoJEDzYwH8LXOFOz0sH/1cPlT7XMJiiOQUg9QG2L+tK +VLPMX5jD4OBuhhMZpuyVQQ+5hYUyjrcc6TetUvDS26uzoX5o0dIyat3w4NNMN5vz +lCBe764OhczqYEILCn6+wfAGcCL+BvmhPoXHkbZKghXYTuP9oAwSzTPaK2F02dwb +5rQvFUOpr2CjE6Wola5IJJv4xjnMzOyPoqwzd8b/SCBculDGksyywbEHXN1uhM2v +k6Iwg0vvHNL5LR+3Bh7TZfVuMnqV6h5PqKkxtGnHcDGGvTdx5h7Icv+isrFGi8uk +CVE7SJ7zlUGJRkWC7otIgMfm/A0UI603AFJYTDUvFMFyVmkSKUuFcbU2JXtWwpI= +=tXQz +-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- + +--VjItdAxLj4KAqmBkN8TJc0kxp49I53dMD-- + |