Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Message-Id: <B2EFCEBA-AC0C-4AB8-8575-038A5455D176@voskuil.org>
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2022 13:53:56 -0700
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: [bitcoin-dev]  Surprisingly, Tail Emission Is Not Inflationary
Precedence: list

=EF=BB=BFIn Bitcoin we use the term =E2=80=9Csupply=E2=80=9C as a reference t=
o the number of coins minted. This colloquialism is commonly conflated with t=
he economic concept of supply, and then injected into a supply/demand relati=
on as if it had the same applicability. Economically supply refers to desire=
 to sell, while demand refers to desire to buy.

e

> On Jul 9, 2022, at 08:24, Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org> wrote:
>=20
> =EF=BB=BFTo clarify, price inflation is not caused by market production. A=
ttributing the observed lack of inflation (eg fee %) to loss is an assumed r=
elation.
>=20
> Even if the amount of loss was known (which it is not), there remains an a=
ssumption in the correlation of non-lost coins to price. Demand determines p=
rice, not the amount of something in existence, hence the folly of S2F (1/mo=
netary-inflation).
>=20
> e
>=20
>> On Jul 9, 2022, at 08:15, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
>> =EF=BB=BFOn Sat, Jul 09, 2022 at 07:26:22AM -0700, Eric Voskuil wrote:
>>>> Due to lost coins, a tail emission/fixed reward actually results in a s=
table money supply. Not an (monetarily) inflationary supply.
>>> This observation is not a proof of lost coins, that is an assumption.
>> To be clear, are you claiming that there is no proof that coins are lost?=

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