Resent-From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 18:03:30 -0500
Resent-Message-ID: <20160302230330.GB888@muck>
Resent-To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 18:02:13 -0500
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org>
Message-ID: <20160302230213.GA888@muck>
References: <201603021456.15820.luke@dashjr.org>
	<201603021542.29609.luke@dashjr.org> <56D71488.4080607@gmail.com>
	<CAE-z3OWA0sn+=+qqs8BtiBe7T9Qdb4G8XAS_bX4hScq225iZQQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<00e101d174b5$f2659060$d730b120$@voskuil.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="jRHKVT23PllUwdXP"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <00e101d174b5$f2659060$d730b120$@voskuil.org>
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hardfork to fix difficulty drop algorithm
Precedence: list


--jRHKVT23PllUwdXP
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 11:01:36AM -0800, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev wrot=
e:
> > A 6 month investment with 3 months on the high subsidy and 3 months on =
low subsidy would not be made=E2=80=A6
>=20
> =20
>=20
> Yes, this is the essential point. All capital investments are made based =
on expectations of future returns. To the extent that futures are perfectly=
 knowable, they can be perfectly factored in. This is why inflation in Bitc=
oin is not a tax, it=E2=80=99s a cost. These step functions are made contin=
uous by their predictability, removing that predictability will make them -=
- unpredictable.

You know, I do agree with you.

But see, this is one of the reasons why we keep reminding people that
strictly speaking a hardfork *is* an altcoin, and the altcoin can change
any rule currently in Bitcoin.

It'd be perfectly reasonable to create an altcoin with a 22-million-coin
limit and an inflation schedule that had smooth, rather than abrupt,
drops. It'd also be reasonable to make that altcoin start with the same
UTXO set as Bitcoin as a means of initial coin distribution.

If miners choose to start mining that altcoin en-mass on the halving,
all the more power to them. It's our choice whether or not we buy those
coins. We may choose not to, but if 95% of the hashing power decides to
go mine something different we have to accept that under our current
chosen rules confirmations might take a long time.


Of course, personally I agree with Gregory Maxwell: this is all fairly
unlikely to happen, so the discussion is academic. But we'll see.

--=20
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000004d430e1daab776bc1c194589b0326924220faa00efc50cf

--jRHKVT23PllUwdXP
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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==
=evon
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--jRHKVT23PllUwdXP--