Feedback-ID: i525146e8:Fastmail
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2022 11:13:44 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: John Tromp <john.tromp@gmail.com>,
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <YsmbKPrsM0wKXAYQ@petertodd.org>
References: <CAOU__fz8XSfEdOS9U7_H4A4jpCgtQepKxaW4jT5go91rhY-VQg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
 protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Byqs61TGiCmvt0dy"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAOU__fz8XSfEdOS9U7_H4A4jpCgtQepKxaW4jT5go91rhY-VQg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Surprisingly, Tail Emission Is Not Inflationary
Precedence: list


--Byqs61TGiCmvt0dy
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Jul 09, 2022 at 04:57:57PM +0200, John Tromp via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > New blog post:
> > https://petertodd.org/2022/surprisingly-tail-emission-is-not-inflationa=
ry
>=20
> A Tail Emission is best described as disinflationary; the yearly
> supply inflation steadily decreases toward zero.

_Apparently_ inflation. True monetary inflation includes lost coins - both
intentionally and accidentally lost. It's quite possible that even with tail
emission Monero is currently a monetarily deflationary coin, as the lost co=
in
rate might be higher than the 0.8% apparent tail emission rate.

We just don't know. Doubly so in the case of monero where its privacy featu=
res
hide coin activity.

> > If an existing coin decides to implement tail emission as a means to fu=
nd security, choosing an appropriate emission rate is simple: decide on the=
 maximum amount of inflation you are willing to have in the worst case, and=
 set the tail emission accordingly.
>=20
> Any coin without a premine starts with infinite inflation. Bitcoin in
> its first 4 years had yearly inflation rates of inf, 100%, 50%, and
> 33%. So deciding on a maximum amount of inflation is deciding on a
> premine.

Hence why I specified an *existing* coin.

> While in the long term, a capped supply doesn't meaningfully differ
> from un uncapped supply [1], the 21M limit is central to Bitcoin's
> identity, and removing this limit results in something that can no
> longer be called Bitcoin.

Personally I think basing your identity on a technical point that isn't even
correct is stupid. And I suspect than when push comes to shove, if in ~10 y=
ears
or whatever Bitcoin turns out to be unstable without a reward, the market a=
s a
whole will be happy to redefine Bitcoin to remove the 21M limit. Whether or=
 not
it can do that fast enough to avoid Bitcoin dying first is an open question.

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

--Byqs61TGiCmvt0dy
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=S3Xa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Byqs61TGiCmvt0dy--