Feedback-ID: i525146e8:Fastmail
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2022 06:31:38 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: alicexbt <alicexbt@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <Yq77CnxOhr615ip8@petertodd.org>
References: <mailman.9.1654344003.14400.bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
 <CAHTn92zw_MaSKWiZGhGFqFYXJxv6kQ+7=XCHbRLim1jhtEsVVQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJowKgJ8GP4Ykzn5dMHZ7wsE04YmpOLgTpdc9tgfVng0qB0Jjg@mail.gmail.com>
 <YqVfTU0M7XN8+Ybu@petertodd.org>
 <Pwr9EFLSv2rU7nXRzqFuw2LPxpFo22g_qYy4reQzpMuSlgRzTG536uLjZCc9sI43olReGMA7BFgjnxJGKtZNtxU7qRy_-YYOnz6TeMy4h8Q=@protonmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
 protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="96zmZgQ7LKx1mur2"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pwr9EFLSv2rU7nXRzqFuw2LPxpFo22g_qYy4reQzpMuSlgRzTG536uLjZCc9sI43olReGMA7BFgjnxJGKtZNtxU7qRy_-YYOnz6TeMy4h8Q=@protonmail.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable
Precedence: list


--96zmZgQ7LKx1mur2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Jun 12, 2022 at 07:16:49PM +0000, alicexbt wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>=20
> > Only because the block reward goes away. If it was made to continue
> > indefinitely - most likely with an inflation hard fork - demand for blo=
ck space
> > would not be critical to Bitcoin's security.
>=20
>=20
> I am not completely against your proposal although 100% sure this will no=
t have "consensus" to be implemented. I think if bitcoin doesn't have enoug=
h demand for block space, it should die. I will be sad if bitcoin doesn't e=
xist but it should be a lesson for all the people opposing soft forks based=
 on drama and politics instead of technical review.
>=20
> I don't see anything wrong with users paying 100x fees for opening and cl=
osing LN channels.

The PoW security of Bitcoin benefits all Bitcoin users, proportional to the
value of BTC they hold; if Bitcoin blocks aren't reliably created the value=
 of
*all* BTC goes down. It doesn't make sense for the entire cost of that secu=
rity
to be paid for on a per-tx basis. And there's a high chance paying for it o=
n a
per-tx basis won't work anyway due to lack of consistent demand.

It would be extremely unfortunate if one of the very few decentralized ways=
 to
store value died simply because we couldn't find a way to pay to keep it
secure.

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

--96zmZgQ7LKx1mur2
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEFcyURjhyM68BBPYTJIFAPaXwkfsFAmKu+wYACgkQJIFAPaXw
kfuTUQf+NhtRHS26QXBZ7rxcFFqWlUOGQ0GQQf5kQzC/XOoMq3KjD28K86R6NOJ7
13XSQSfhyeQY/SLzM5OtuZogayb3lpoBmVrt+9eGn5iGIVOAGkK1nZJvbR4yanaF
GId/l/NyvakQt61aBQjUdwjfwRpLYwInZo7aff2zAoXk72kfcGKZ9THyeKFaUW1k
lqabWMOkrNZ3kCnGKruf0u1boEClNQRBekepgaD2zQgCeuFSk9j+LSdnM3dStvTr
Nub6uXUEUGCRGboM5+OCXxL/930PBTZO1bHm6kulHkm9qtWpaTn+48ch6/+NlqFj
9yV3x6OvRR5+5Lf2RN2ElcMN+I4qdQ==
=SkRW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--96zmZgQ7LKx1mur2--