diff options
author | JK <jk_14@op.pl> | 2023-11-05 18:25:47 +0100 |
---|---|---|
committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2023-11-05 17:36:08 +0000 |
commit | a830b3cd0c84878d95d1a1db1900d35cad54ef41 (patch) | |
tree | ad85975c8dbc03d84a06c3144e67969618433dd8 | |
parent | f16a84acc77e85224373c27c6c7379feec07a550 (diff) | |
download | pi-bitcoindev-a830b3cd0c84878d95d1a1db1900d35cad54ef41.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-a830b3cd0c84878d95d1a1db1900d35cad54ef41.zip |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] ossification and misaligned incentive concerns
-rw-r--r-- | f9/7c3bd59033687ad72b2598f2ab1d3ec71832e1 | 242 |
1 files changed, 242 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/f9/7c3bd59033687ad72b2598f2ab1d3ec71832e1 b/f9/7c3bd59033687ad72b2598f2ab1d3ec71832e1 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..b739a5bc6 --- /dev/null +++ b/f9/7c3bd59033687ad72b2598f2ab1d3ec71832e1 @@ -0,0 +1,242 @@ +Return-Path: <jk_14@op.pl> +Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::136]) + by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5943C0032 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Sun, 5 Nov 2023 17:36:08 +0000 (UTC) +Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) + by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 815E160BAC + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Sun, 5 Nov 2023 17:36:08 +0000 (UTC) +DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org 815E160BAC +Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org; + dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=op.pl header.i=@op.pl header.a=rsa-sha256 + header.s=2011 header.b=cA384/tu +X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org +X-Spam-Flag: NO +X-Spam-Score: -2.098 +X-Spam-Level: +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, + RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, + SPF_PASS=-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 1FA1BBeTVQZ4 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Sun, 5 Nov 2023 17:36:07 +0000 (UTC) +X-Greylist: delayed 608 seconds by postgrey-1.37 at util1.osuosl.org; + Sun, 05 Nov 2023 17:36:06 UTC +DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org D2C6460BA3 +Received: from smtpa39.poczta.onet.pl (smtpa39.poczta.onet.pl [213.180.142.39]) + by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D2C6460BA3 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Sun, 5 Nov 2023 17:36:06 +0000 (UTC) +Received: from [192.168.0.97] (87-206-156-181.dynamic.chello.pl + [87.206.156.181]) + (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits)) + (No client certificate requested) + (Authenticated sender: jk_144@onet.pl) + by smtp.poczta.onet.pl (Onet) with ESMTPSA id 4SNhG45RK0zlgC4S; + Sun, 5 Nov 2023 18:25:48 +0100 (CET) +DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=op.pl; s=2011; + t=1699205149; bh=TeMb2wvCmLLutowpTj34yZkkbjLGc7f189kBVfir/Qg=; + h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; + b=cA384/turNloMgiJmE2LXivmnbLzb8DLMVksOibTBJMq4yozQ9dwvSC25X4sczevK + UBwJwkE76Z8oVlp7t0skepB1bhHXgcyUOlcqZqYpVjeHVVtq83ZL5/Q56y45nigBcC + O3A/eXyc7WYVJcfa0de8gwtvrK4EjELfW/rWgcSQ= +Message-ID: <8443b179-2d24-4e77-9ff6-c5f51af545aa@op.pl> +Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2023 18:25:47 +0100 +MIME-Version: 1.0 +User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird +Content-Language: pl +To: Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com>, + Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +References: <CAJowKgJXxS3L=pQR=jhSXBgdDR9k5mwPyKhKkuFESw5_qOgdrQ@mail.gmail.com> + <21dd55af-ca9d-48b0-b2aa-4a1399f15611@op.pl> + <CAJowKgJhXEBJgOhoOtUrsO_KpFwJ_fRYnZopDEuHCgSx5CzOJg@mail.gmail.com> +From: JK <jk_14@op.pl> +In-Reply-To: <CAJowKgJhXEBJgOhoOtUrsO_KpFwJ_fRYnZopDEuHCgSx5CzOJg@mail.gmail.com> +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed +Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit +X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 06 Nov 2023 08:51:34 +0000 +Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] ossification and misaligned incentive concerns +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, 05 Nov 2023 17:36:08 -0000 + + +Ok, instead of (maybe too general) term "network security," - I may +change it into a more precise term then: +"security of Store-of-Value" + +Of course, your private keys are private and your note is fully +validating... + +...but: miners provide security of Store-of-Value property. Miners +simply ensure keeping intact the purchasing power of Bitcoins stored on +your private keys. And it's really difficult to dispute this simple fact. + +"Contact with Europeans in the 19th century first provided the Yapese at +Palau with iron tools, that made the cutting and shaping of the stones +*** much easier ***. Not much later, the Yapese made deals with +Europeans to use their ships to transport the stones back to Yap. These +arrangements enabled the manufacture of much larger and heavier rai +stones, up to 4 meters in diameter, as well of a larger number of them. +However, these "modern" stones were *** less valuable *** than more +ancient ones" +https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rai_stones#Manufacturing_after_European_contact + +much easier "mining" of rai stones/Bitcoins => less valuable rai +stones/Bitcoins + +And as we can see - it's not the matter of belief or disbelief. +I really hope this simple example is ultimately enough to put an end to +the narrative that miners do not provide security of Bitcoin - if they +do provide the security of one of most important Bitcoin's property. + + + +W dniu 05.11.2023 o 15:59, Erik Aronesty pisze: +> I don't believe the narrative that miners provide network security +> +> they provide double spend insurance +> +> and that's it +> +> so that limits the size of the transaction and the number of +> confirmations that are required before that transaction is cleared +> +> But it doesn't provide security for the rest of the network. My private +> keys are private and my note is fully validating .. and there's +> nothing miners can do about that +> +> let's ditch that narrative please +> +> +> +> On Sun, Nov 5, 2023, 9:40 AM JK <jk_14@op.pl <mailto:jk_14@op.pl>> wrote: +> +> +> I'm worried even more about something else, but still fits into the +> same +> topic category. +> +> +> A tax in the form of a direct tax is less acceptable to people than a +> hidden tax. This is human nature, as the saying goes, "What the eye +> doesn't see, the heart doesn't grieve over." A high direct tax +> (e.g., on +> a one-time transaction) is much more irritating than a tax of the same +> amount but hidden (especially when it affects all cash holders equally, +> as in the case of inflation). +> +> There is no reason to believe that in any alternative financial system, +> it will be different ("This time is different." No, it is not.) +> +> The analogy is clear: a transaction tax is on-chain fee, an inflation +> tax is the block reward. And just in case: miners are only able to +> collect payment for providing network security in an amount equal to +> the +> sum collected in both of these taxes, and no single satoshi more (the +> principle that "There's no such thing as a free lunch" applies). +> +> Now, a little thought experiment: +> Imagine a system that tries to maintain a constant level of difficulty +> and reacts flexibly to changes in difficulty, by modulating the block +> reward level accordingly (using negative feedback). +> +> It is known that the system will oscillate around a certain level of +> the +> block reward value (around a certain level of inflation) that provides +> the desired level of network security. +> +> Furthermore, Earth is a closed system with finite resources, making it +> hard to imagine a situation where Bitcoin is responsible for e.g. 95% +> of global energy consumption (while complaints already arise at 0.1%). +> +> In other words, the level of network security is de facto limited from +> the top, whether we like it or not. +> +> And for a naturally limited and still acceptable level of network +> security (vide: "Change the code, not the climate") - there is a +> corresponding level of inflation. +> +> +> To sum this up, the most important conclusion to remember is: +> +> For a natural level of network security, there is a natural level of +> inflation. +> +> +> +> I'll add a very relevant comment I know from the internet: +> +> "It makes sense. Something akin to what the central banks do by setting +> interest rates, but algorithmic, leading to a 'natural' (rather than +> manipulated) level of inflation. But different, because it's directly +> tied to security. I haven't thought whether it would be an issue if it +> works in one direction only (halvings, but no doublings), but it might. +> When I was learning about Bitcoin, I heard "It costs you nothing to +> store your bitcoin (as opposed to, say, gold). You get security for +> free." and thought it sounded wonderful, but too good to be true. There +> is no free lunch and all that... I understand a lack of inflation is +> aligned with Austrian economics, but the Austrians didn't know a +> monetary system whose security was tied to inflation. So it's a new +> concept to wrap one's head around." +> https://stacker.news/items/291420 <https://stacker.news/items/291420> +> +> +> There is growing awareness of the lack of a free market between active +> and passive participants in Bitcoin and growing awareness of the +> inevitability of the problem that will arise in the future as a result. +> And there is slowly growing acceptance of well-thought-out proposals to +> fix this situation. +> The free market is more important than finite supply. +> +> +> Regards +> Jaroslaw +> +> +> W dniu 03.11.2023 o 19:24, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev pisze: +> > currently, there are providers of anonymity services, scaling +> services, +> > custody, and other services layered on top of bitcoin using +> trust-based +> > and federated models. +> > +> > as bitcoin becomes more popular, these service providers have +> > increasingly had a louder "voice" in development and maintenance +> of the +> > protocol +> > +> > holders generally want these features +> > +> > but service providers have an incentive to maintain a "moat" around +> > their services +> > +> > in summary, making privacy, scaling and vaulting "hard" for regular +> > users, keeping it off-chain and federated... is now incentivised +> among +> > a vocal, but highly technical, minority +> > +> > is anyone else worried about this? +> > +> > _______________________________________________ +> > bitcoin-dev mailing list +> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +> <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev +> <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev> +> + |