Feedback-ID: i525146e8:Fastmail
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2023 15:58:07 -0500
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Alfie John <alfie@alfie.wtf>
Message-ID: <Y8hdX55fT/Rssh1q@petertodd.org>
References: <173552838-a7412589a40ea770709d0b227b056bd3@pmq5v.m5r2.onet>
 <Y690OjY0MA/YQ9IL@petertodd.org>
 <2480C772-EE75-4350-BF11-FA9FEFC8A4EA@alfie.wtf>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
 protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="WGNU1Usz+uWXAqdN"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2480C772-EE75-4350-BF11-FA9FEFC8A4EA@alfie.wtf>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Pseudocode for robust tail emission
Precedence: list


--WGNU1Usz+uWXAqdN
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Jan 01, 2023 at 11:42:50PM +1100, Alfie John wrote:
> On 31 Dec 2022, at 10:28 am, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@list=
s.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >=20
> >> This way:
> >>=20
> >> 1. system cannot be played
> >> 2. only in case of destructive halving: system waits for the recovery =
of network security
> >=20
> > The immediate danger we have with halvings is that in a competitive mar=
ket,
> > profit margins tend towards marginal costs - the cost to produce an add=
itional
> > unit of production - rather than total costs - the cost necessary to re=
cover
> > prior and future expenses. Since the halving is a sudden shock to the s=
ystem,
> > under the right conditions we could have a significant amount of hashin=
g power
> > just barely able to afford to hash prior to the halving, resulting in a=
ll that
> > hashing power immediately having to shut down and fees increasing drama=
tically,
> > and likely, chaotically.  Your proposal does not address that problem a=
s it can
> > only measure difficulty prior to the halving point.
>=20
>=20
> > ... Since the halving is a sudden shock to the system
>=20
> Is it though? Since everyone knows of the possible outcomes, wouldn't a p=
ossible halving be priced in?=20

Re-read that I said. That explains why despite the halving being a forseeab=
le
event, there's no mechanism to "price it in" when it comes to hashing power.

> > resulting in all that hashing power immediately having to shut down and=
 fees increasing dramatically
>=20
> Which should cause that hashing power to come back because of this fee in=
creases.

Right now the total reward per transaction is $63, three orders of magnitude
higher than typical fees. Sufficient fee increases to bring back hashing po=
wer
in a scenario like that would cause enormous disruption to many things,
including Lightning channels.

--=20
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org

--WGNU1Usz+uWXAqdN
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=412q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--WGNU1Usz+uWXAqdN--