diff options
| author | Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> | 2022-07-10 13:27:05 -0400 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2022-07-10 17:27:14 +0000 |
| commit | 87014507014d365d26100d3b5669dee6583ca92f (patch) | |
| tree | 942ad709d330989ada266bd129b56b2428412e71 | |
| parent | 94c5278c1da7e282cb9c24624ead7b6180acf272 (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-87014507014d365d26100d3b5669dee6583ca92f.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-87014507014d365d26100d3b5669dee6583ca92f.zip | |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Surprisingly, Tail Emission Is Not Inflationary
| -rw-r--r-- | 1a/26cacff2f1db59bf767dea8a3c10206afce34f | 251 |
1 files changed, 251 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/1a/26cacff2f1db59bf767dea8a3c10206afce34f b/1a/26cacff2f1db59bf767dea8a3c10206afce34f new file mode 100644 index 000000000..7e6da61d8 --- /dev/null +++ b/1a/26cacff2f1db59bf767dea8a3c10206afce34f @@ -0,0 +1,251 @@ +Return-Path: <user@petertodd.org> +Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138]) + by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CAB4C002D + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Sun, 10 Jul 2022 17:27:14 +0000 (UTC) +Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) + by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CF2281762 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Sun, 10 Jul 2022 17:27:13 +0000 (UTC) +DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 8CF2281762 +Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org; + dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=petertodd.org + header.i=@petertodd.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=fm1 header.b=L34aezKo; + dkim=pass (2048-bit key, + unprotected) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com + header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=fm3 header.b=wh2T3tGb +X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org +X-Spam-Flag: NO +X-Spam-Score: -2.8 +X-Spam-Level: +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 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, LOTS_OF_MONEY=0.001, + MILLION_USD=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, + SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no +Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) + by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) + with ESMTP id ei7Cu_ugsjim + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Sun, 10 Jul 2022 17:27:12 +0000 (UTC) +X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 +DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 297BA8149A +Received: from wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com + [64.147.123.21]) + by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 297BA8149A + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Sun, 10 Jul 2022 17:27:12 +0000 (UTC) +Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) + by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id B08033200392; + Sun, 10 Jul 2022 13:27:10 -0400 (EDT) +Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) + by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 10 Jul 2022 13:27:11 -0400 +DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=petertodd.org; + h=cc:cc:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to + :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:sender + :subject:subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1657474030; x=1657560430; bh=YB + bnn/eAvfUK/WuBpf9eXgSHiVZbrI6mf96ZBj0nUaQ=; b=L34aezKoTJeG4M8vVe + CHhbWDXT6UP6f2gmPsb+oR6PYm3leGIIAU4LLgXjZqmSwOVImqNIy0EHfIdmw8VR + y7r/4mbCii8UjVNO1iloUbymdQGzNYDLxRs8usdb5viVYEN3qminAk1aDPL68Aab + BuW71bEV5N+/KZr3IJGiac6yrl02kqSFFbTHKbBADNesPocplKyriW92XGr0NY30 + ClCdTu0eoldDeL+/O8vrWG4r6hHRH71firpRuT+z5wnr1UaN/C0z84IFvQYBcU4x + 1Kw49Udw+6gXCODkNvhnlEhRmr7bSyO6DLCKmnsGbl5jgXzlQaI5fK+pY6uqU+MX + jtZQ== +DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= + messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:date:date:feedback-id + :feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id + :mime-version:references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to + :x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= + fm3; t=1657474030; x=1657560430; bh=YBbnn/eAvfUK/WuBpf9eXgSHiVZb + rI6mf96ZBj0nUaQ=; b=wh2T3tGb/W6TPQmVdWR6CsOE0XC81cQoTNCx8sdyF5/x + liAIw1WCSx6B4jxIyQEaHVdl8W24bmWSZERABHtTcZw4OqTQkond5lwzpLx5wJGF + vLVy9gFJGa52aH+GrNPxj1tj7uOKk2AI5YzNFNucSE92iRa5qV8u8djQPxYc6icy + YejZI5PYvGJdhlRIJ+jEOQX9LcFCKLKM8kEvzbNbvletsIdEqzURTupldigj+L6J + eSZJwI3zRxs1iM2cEp8E7hDVS0k/E24Kp4cYgUmWCkbO3cZ6tTwqtHqZ033a+OXD + zVX3ie4zb+EdrR4TfYgsxgOlpxKpFr0mDqChnw415Q== +X-ME-Sender: <xms:7QvLYsh3OzN0VA7mwAPTY33MdZL8A1qx87VEjeoMm0Xuna4-CWgXIA> + <xme:7QvLYlDMRWKICljus9Br0Wd1k4h-gX6ez5amyMqeMXZ1eNMS4Cle8swi5sqCZ2eJg + Qz20fXLVUAki8DFqws> +X-ME-Received: <xmr:7QvLYkE2aD6J84e7MRS31alZEmIzTHTT3JcO7prX204yFDFF5hdHe_2Kt6eEmAXTfl_AT_v91hGj660Vs0t6YDl9B755FZNNRKqjzw> +X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvfedrudejuddgudduhecutefuodetggdotefrod + ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh + necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd + enucfjughrpeffhffvvefukfhfgggtuggjsehgtderredttdejnecuhfhrohhmpefrvght + vghrucfvohguugcuoehpvghtvgesphgvthgvrhhtohguugdrohhrgheqnecuggftrfgrth + htvghrnhepveevudduheffgfehkefgveevhedtfeejhfevgeeffffhheejudejgfevieel + tedtnecuffhomhgrihhnpehpvghtvghrthhouggurdhorhhgpdgslhhotghktghhrghinh + drtghomhenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhm + pehushgvrhesphgvthgvrhhtohguugdrohhrgh +X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:7QvLYtTr7Nnu_01jnGS_BQE8ojat6J5NsIM_q2fg4ZYxcLLm9-o-QA> + <xmx:7QvLYpyldCGofVJf7i-g4ZcSMd8tQt_KmlIHHC9uUDPa2j6L43XkhA> + <xmx:7QvLYr5HK4AyelN0wLOKpBkNv9wKAnz5-mE9HUT0WdBNuE-IQKqrMg> + <xmx:7gvLYqod_hoEGqYq0PY62p6DTZl5FAbaaQF_LopSBGUsoD61KROR-A> +Feedback-ID: i525146e8:Fastmail +Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Sun, + 10 Jul 2022 13:27:09 -0400 (EDT) +Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000) + id 0BC585F87C; Sun, 10 Jul 2022 13:27:05 -0400 (EDT) +Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2022 13:27:05 -0400 +From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> +To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com> +Message-ID: <YssL6VL9y6EwyBjr@petertodd.org> +References: <D50AEC8C-4EEC-4C17-8626-87C651F1AA66@voskuil.org> + <6xuj-ljJ9hvME-TIgWHmfPpad4aJ-1zTYSH1NBuFL_gi-6hJHMayWLEAhcEyw_lqmkR24ee8uMIAH6n4TDguk_5fJ8och99Em3m5y1R6brE=@protonmail.com> +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; + protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="mPLwxQosmUnrKIKt" +Content-Disposition: inline +In-Reply-To: <6xuj-ljJ9hvME-TIgWHmfPpad4aJ-1zTYSH1NBuFL_gi-6hJHMayWLEAhcEyw_lqmkR24ee8uMIAH6n4TDguk_5fJ8och99Em3m5y1R6brE=@protonmail.com> +Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +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: Sun, 10 Jul 2022 17:27:14 -0000 + + +--mPLwxQosmUnrKIKt +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 +Content-Disposition: inline +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable + +On Sat, Jul 09, 2022 at 09:59:06PM +0000, ZmnSCPxj wrote: +> Good morning e, and list, +>=20 +> > Yet you posted several links which made that specific correlation, to w= +hich I was responding. +> > +> > Math cannot prove how much coin is =E2=80=9Clost=E2=80=9D, and even if = +it was provable that the amount of coin lost converges to the amount produc= +ed, it is of no consequence - for the reasons I=E2=80=99ve already pointed = +out. The amount of market production has no impact on market price, just as= + it does not with any other good. +> > +> > The reason to object to perpetual issuance is the impact on censorship = +resistance, not on price. +>=20 +> To clarify about censorship resistance and perpetual issuance ("tail emis= +sion"): +>=20 +> * Suppose I have two blockchains, one with a constant block subsidy, and = +one which *had* a block subsidy but the block subsidy has become negligible= + or zero. +> * Now consider a censoring miner. +> * If the miner rejects particular transactions (i.e. "censors") the min= +er loses out on the fees of those transactions. +> * Presumably, the miner does this because it gains other benefits from = +the censorship, economically equal or better to the earnings lost. +> * If the blockchain had a block subsidy, then the loss the miner incurs= + is small relative to the total earnings of each block. +> * If the blockchain had 0 block subsidy, then the loss the miner incurs= + is large relative to the total earnings of each block. +> * Thus, in the latter situation, the external benefit the miner gains f= +rom the censorship has to be proportionately larger than in the first situa= +tion. + +Now let's look at an actual, real-world, attempt to censor Bitcoin via mini= +ng: + +https://petertodd.org/2016/mit-chainanchor-bribing-miners-to-regulate-bitco= +in + +The Chain Anchor model was to simply straight up bribe and coerce miners in= +to +only accepting compliant transactions. That's only effective when a large %= + of +miners actually do that - if a small % do the effect on confirmation time is +miniscule. Obviously, censoring transactions is a significant threat to the +value of Bitcoin - and thus all your Bitcoin-only hashing equipment. + +So how do you make a Chain Anchor attack cheaper? By reducing total mining +reward, and making it tied to transaction volume rather than the value of +Bitcoin as a whole. + +> Basically, the block subsidy is a market distortion: the block subsidy er= +odes the value of held coins to pay for the security of coins being moved. + +The block subsidy directly ties miner revenue to the total value of Bitcoin: +that's exactly how you want to incentivise a service that keeps Bitcoin sec= +ure. + +> But the block subsidy is still issued whether or not coins being moved ar= +e censored or not censored. +> Thus, there is no incentive, considering *only* the block subsidy, to not= + censor coin movements. +> Only per-transaction fees have an incentive to not censor coin movements. + +The strongest incentive not to censor is because it'll keep Bitcoin valuabl= +e. +Not some piddling transaction fees. + +> Thus, we should instead prepare for a future where the block subsidy *mus= +t* be removed, possibly before the existing schedule removes it, in case a = +majority coalition of miner ever decides to censor particular transactions = +without community consensus. +> Fortunately forcing the block subsidy to 0 is a softfork and thus easier = +to deploy. + +Absolutely not. + +The historical reality of transaction fees is they've had huge swings, about +10x more volatile than total miner revenue. In the past three years they've +ranged from $8.4 million USD/30-day-average to as little as $140k/30-day-av= +g, +with the current amount being $370k/30-day-avg. That's a 60x difference. + +Meanwhile miner revenue has ranged from $60 million/30-day-avg to $9 +million/30-day-avg, a 7x difference. + +https://www.blockchain.com/charts/fees-usd-per-transaction + +We want mining to be is a boring, predictable, business that anyone can do, +with as little reward as possible to larger scale miners. That's what you n= +eed +for maximal decentralization. Making mining a sophisticated business reduces +the pool of entities that can profitably compete in it, and increases their +visibility to government regulation. + +Additionally, we want mining to be predictable to avoid having large gluts = +of +unprofitable mining equipment laying around: mining equipment that could be +used to attack Bitcoin. Fee revenue is obviously doing a much worse job of +achieving that goal than subsidy revenue. + + +If transaction-fee-only mining was such a good idea, why hasn't any other c= +oin +done it? + +--=20 +https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org + +--mPLwxQosmUnrKIKt +Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" + +-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- + +iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEE0RcYcKRzsEwFZ3N5Lly11TVRLzcFAmLLC+YACgkQLly11TVR +Lzf+kg//fpIkpY2KhXPDlj1B2qDS02/tEMt74tr9a+ZpeoIQUdaXJyaag+xefMpv +vaLCLymQpKr1PnuRhKi0n6K3FeqkGwPUW2XQSHjBjlkOiS6SSnyei8W4uG+qt46Y +gWQksFJ6aAbLDRah5mtX5OiSo3X7HeQOx6wA944HyKQDHru8U2c6EUtTm1WiLHSo +NS49eHdtdJAsvNsTPud/sxDvNrMQd2rzSp2NYnLXhlneG/HPJ+sjE8ocMyhdCNUj +vrehr32+C5MMOlFCPLtLfmHNBaOfiTdJoN2Y65u4/lCqsKxe5izN/Hby7GI8XZWV +ca1X5Pu2Q5wwMwL4frLHgACScEngwAtliqzh0jvpUV1Jk2n0Bzb7Xud+kmXhft4i +x5zBTuDFIVSr032yaBd+UU8Dd2VT1TYsaoPm+mg3DSDnsA+aD6+uqPOGFIyQAO4l ++pqRvq+i//TGEKqivVZnWDp6AUFaqF0biVpyEKKy2hayYuWZoVpzAm7S8Nyblmqp +e/WjesPYhkJoB6FuwuyQ/eDJ/nkkgFh2F2Z1NCooM0EwTcH0dhKkh3PODHiKboyy +a4azcieVjbYXJg90M4PWQS06/tgaU76eb2u4m7GrtB4JqM96zsF3gciIzIfTs+h9 +5vmYFdj1/VsaFueMG95RKPn2QIF4jffwRDVCdZR9cioe/vuw3vE= +=lXav +-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- + +--mPLwxQosmUnrKIKt-- + |