diff options
author | vjudeu <vjudeu@gazeta.pl> | 2022-08-19 07:34:25 +0200 |
---|---|---|
committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2022-08-19 05:34:36 +0000 |
commit | 625e598bcfa733ca69c80769455735244044eb14 (patch) | |
tree | fcd246c672cf57fc4734a11bad2fed63fccbe47e | |
parent | b378c958af69afde4f8793837556b7e6e4f19e8c (diff) | |
download | pi-bitcoindev-625e598bcfa733ca69c80769455735244044eb14.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-625e598bcfa733ca69c80769455735244044eb14.zip |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Surprisingly, Tail Emission Is Not Inflationary
-rw-r--r-- | 63/d3483a310020c1177754023a59222349db0faf | 219 |
1 files changed, 219 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/63/d3483a310020c1177754023a59222349db0faf b/63/d3483a310020c1177754023a59222349db0faf new file mode 100644 index 000000000..61652eb07 --- /dev/null +++ b/63/d3483a310020c1177754023a59222349db0faf @@ -0,0 +1,219 @@ +Return-Path: <vjudeu@gazeta.pl> +Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133]) + by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 021C7C002D + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Fri, 19 Aug 2022 05:34:36 +0000 (UTC) +Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) + by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1194400D3 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Fri, 19 Aug 2022 05:34:35 +0000 (UTC) +DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org D1194400D3 +Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org; + dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gazeta.pl header.i=@gazeta.pl + header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=2013 header.b=Z4aFQYsw +X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org +X-Spam-Flag: NO +X-Spam-Score: -2.099 +X-Spam-Level: +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 + tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, + DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, + SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no +Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) + by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) + with ESMTP id yN3dShW-gqde + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Fri, 19 Aug 2022 05:34:34 +0000 (UTC) +X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 +DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org 2AEE9400CE +Received: from smtpa14.poczta.onet.pl (smtpa14.poczta.onet.pl [213.180.142.14]) + by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2AEE9400CE + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Fri, 19 Aug 2022 05:34:33 +0000 (UTC) +Received: from pmq6v.m5r2.onet (pmq6v.m5r2.onet [10.174.33.77]) + by smtp.poczta.onet.pl (Onet) with ESMTP id 4M89Rk12pPzlg9YH; + Fri, 19 Aug 2022 07:34:25 +0200 (CEST) +DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gazeta.pl; s=2013; + t=1660887266; bh=/YCHE27JOhgY75SarinSdI0PaqVBGqDA94Qsyky/b9c=; + h=From:To:Date:Subject:From; + b=Z4aFQYswjfAjNLIyj4Ef3yN/1lUIvspIpDPrIyWVk7oK3Lw9Xtn/EznWIHuOdhzA4 + M9s3KTDu7C3dOP/tjwGXXZmKg+K8mQoIOs7cUl3rHPOkOBTbhQcfiU2298xoO5tn/C + 2cAqigtjihNjzxRMYBo3wxc8eyLqAnfrBZyfQjxU= +Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable +Received: from [31.61.165.201] by pmq6v.m5r2.onet via HTTP id ; + Fri, 19 Aug 2022 07:34:25 +0200 +From: vjudeu@gazeta.pl +X-Priority: 3 +To: Billy Tetrud <billy.tetrud@gmail.com>, + Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>, , + "jk_14@op.pl" <jk_14@op.pl>, , + Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2022 07:34:25 +0200 +Message-Id: <73904836-123affd52a139f11587a4971b0df5f07@pmq6v.m5r2.onet> +X-Mailer: onet.poczta +X-Onet-PMQ: <vjudeu@gazeta.pl>;31.61.165.201;PL;4 +X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 19 Aug 2022 08:55:10 +0000 +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: Fri, 19 Aug 2022 05:34:36 -0000 + +> If we actually wanted to solve the potential problem of not-enough-fees t= +o upkeep mining security, there are less temporary ways to solve that. For = +example, if fees end up not being able to support sufficient mining, we cou= +ld add emission based on a constant fraction of fees in the block. For exam= +ple, every block could emit new bitcoin amounting to 10% of the fees collec= +ted in that block. This would tie coinbase rewards to the real world (since= + the fee market is tied to the real economy) and ensure higher block revenu= +e indefinitely - ie not just for another 50 years. + +Miners can game this system by moving their own coins in 100% fees transact= +ions, just to produce more coins. You have one million BTC? No problem, jus= +t move them as fees, and you just created 100k BTC out of thin air, just be= +cause you are a wealthy miner. And even if that amount will be stolen, when= + some other miner will reorg your block, then still, miners will keep creat= +ing coins by moving them as fees, and the strongest miner will get the whol= +e pot. And guess what: 100 blocks later you can reuse newly created 100k BT= +C to make another 10k BTC, so it will exponentially explode as (amountOfCoi= +ns*(1+0.1))^n function. And guess what: (1.1)^8 is 2.14358881. That means, = +after eight moves, you can double your coins, if you are a wealthy miner. A= +nd you can start with smaller amounts, to play it safe, but eventually, thi= +s system will degrade into "coin doubler after 800 blocks" or something sim= +ilar. + + +On 2022-08-18 18:45:43 user Billy Tetrud via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists= +.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: +While constant tail emission does in fact converge to 0 inflation over time= + (which bitcoin's halvings do as well mind you), tail emission does *not* s= +olve the potential problem of mining rewards, it only delays it. A tail emi= +ssion of 200,000 btc/year (~1% of the=C2=A0current supply) would be equival= +ent to halvings every ~50 years rather than every 4 years. Were we to imple= +ment this kind of thing right after the last non-" destructive" halving, it= + would buy us 46 years of extra time. Nothing more, nothing less. + + +While its mildly interesting to know that tail emission converges to a stab= +le point, while no inflation implies monetary deflation at the rate of loss= +, this feels very likely to be an insignificant problem. I think 1% loss ra= +te per year is an absurdly high estimate these days, and the loss rate is l= +ikely to decrease as methods of storing bitcoin mature. Imagine bitcoin was= + worth $1 trillion (not so hard, since it was not too long ago), then try i= +magining people losing $10 billion of bitcoin every year. Highly unlikely I= +MO. A rate of loss of 0.01%/year might be more realistic for a near-future = +mature bitcoin. That's not going to be enough to make a significant differe= +nce=C2=A0even over 100s of years.=C2=A0 + + +If we actually wanted to solve the potential problem of not-enough-fees to = +upkeep mining security, there are less temporary ways to solve that. For ex= +ample, if fees end up not being able to support sufficient mining, we could= + add emission based on a constant fraction of fees in the block. For exampl= +e, every block could emit new bitcoin amounting to 10% of the fees collecte= +d in that block. This would tie coinbase rewards to the real world (since t= +he fee market is tied to the real economy) and ensure higher block revenue = +indefinitely - ie not just for another=C2=A050 years.=C2=A0 + + +But its also worth saying that blockchain security (which mining revenue co= +rrelates with) does *not* need to increase indefinitely. There is some amou= +nt of security (and therefore some amount of mining revenue) that is suffic= +ient, beyond which additional security is simply unnecessary, unwarranted, = +and wasteful (you wouldn't buy a $1000 safe to store $1000 of valuables). D= +o we, as the bitcoin community, have some good idea how much security we ne= +ed? Do we have some idea how costly a 51% attack must be where we can be co= +mfortable it will never happen? I'm curious to hear what people think about= + that. Because without having some kind of estimates of what "enough securi= +ty" is, there's absolutely no way of evaluating whether or not its likely t= +hat bitcoin fees alone will be able to sustain enough security.=C2=A0 + + + + + + +On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 9:31 AM Jaroslaw via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists= +.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: + +On one scale you puts the Trust to the large stakeholders (why we avoid ple= +nty of small stakeholders, btw), +and on the other side I put game theory and well defined Prisoner's Dilemma. + +Again: large stakeholders WILL NOT incentivised to mine, they will have the= + hundreds excuses why not to switch-on Antminers back. +That's how it simply works.=C2=A0 Bitcoin would fail miserably if Satoshi w= +as based his concept mainly on existence of idealists. + +If we will observe lack of hashrate recovery four years after some halving = +and still unprepared like today +- means the trust in large stakeholders was a very costly mistake. + + +Superiority of Proof of Work against Proof of Stake has been discussed enou= +gh either +The overall conclusion with what I fully agree=C2=A0 is: swapping PoW to Po= +S - would be a degradation. +You can stop talking about degradation to proof of stake, but just: degrada= +tion. + +Degradation of Bitcoin, due to human greed. + +Now you mine and you have an INSTANT gratification. +Then you will mine and it will cost you real money, but simple switch - and= + you have a DELAYED, maybe some day in the future, maybe only a tiny - puni= +shment. +And The Punishment Won't Be Tiny. + + +"If the pain after hitting the hand with a hammer would appear after a mont= +h - people would notoriously walk with swollen fingers" +100% (^2) + +Regards +Jaroslaw + + + +W dniu 2022-08-17 13:10:38 u=C5=BCytkownik Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com> nap= +isa=C5=82: + +> you can stop talking about=C2=A0 the "security of the system" as meaningf= +ul +> this has been discussed enough +> if fees are not sufficient, clearance times increase and large stakeholde= +rs are incentivised to mine=C2=A0 +> in the best case, fees are sufficient +> in the worst case, it degrades to proof of stake +> i'm sure you can see how that's fine either=C2=A0way + + + +_______________________________________________ +bitcoin-dev mailing list +bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev + + +_______________________________________________ +bitcoin-dev mailing list +bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev + +_______________________________________________ +bitcoin-dev mailing list +bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev + + + |