MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <Ysl4t9K8lfxRSsNM@petertodd.org>
 <20220711023247.GA21856@erisian.com.au>
In-Reply-To: <20220711023247.GA21856@erisian.com.au>
From: Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2022 08:56:04 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJowKgLDXr1ycGzCqRTe=iA_SQkchd1D4gtDD6o4gnK4dyn5dQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>, 
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b76d5405e3871328"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Surprisingly, Tail Emission Is Not Inflationary
Precedence: list

--000000000000b76d5405e3871328
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

>
>
> Alternatively, losses could be at a predictable rate that's entirely
> different to the one Peter assumes.
>

No, peter only assumes that there *is* a rate.

Regardless of what the rate is, if it is any value for which there exists
*any fixed central tendency*, tail emission is *evenually* non inflationary.

But you are correct about the other two things:

1. If people are improving custody faster than 1/(N(t)*P) than tail
emission can still be inflationary.  This seems far-fetched, imo.

2. The rate will be somewhat stochastic ("black swan envets").  Plausible
(popular wallet loses keys in coding error), but also... "true no matter
what".  And not really relevant to tail-emission  being non-inflationary.
 Over a long enough time period, even these events can be factored into a
fixed central tendency.   Even if it's 100 years, etc.

--000000000000b76d5405e3871328
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quot=
e" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204)=
;padding-left:1ex"><br>Alternatively, losses could be at a predictable rate=
 that&#39;s entirely<br>different to the one Peter assumes.<br></blockquote=
><div><br></div><div>No, peter only assumes that there *is* a rate.=C2=A0=
=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>Regardless of what the rate is, if it is an=
y value for which there exists *any fixed central=C2=A0tendency*, tail emis=
sion is *evenually* non inflationary.</div><div><br></div><div>But you are =
correct about the other two things:</div><div><br></div><div>1. If people a=
re improving custody faster than 1/(N(t)*P) than tail emission can still be=
 inflationary.=C2=A0 This seems far-fetched, imo.</div><div><br></div><div>=
2. The rate will be somewhat stochastic (&quot;black swan envets&quot;).=C2=
=A0 Plausible (popular wallet loses keys in coding error), but also... &quo=
t;true no matter what&quot;.=C2=A0 And not really relevant to tail-emission=
=C2=A0 being non-inflationary.=C2=A0 =C2=A0Over a long enough time period, =
even these events can be factored into a fixed central tendency.=C2=A0 =C2=
=A0Even if it&#39;s 100 years, etc.</div></div></div>

--000000000000b76d5405e3871328--