Return-Path: Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7C8CC002D for ; Tue, 21 Jun 2022 20:10:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC3DF61071 for ; Tue, 21 Jun 2022 20:10:48 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org BC3DF61071 Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=voskuil-org.20210112.gappssmtp.com header.i=@voskuil-org.20210112.gappssmtp.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20210112 header.b=SF6tvDe6 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.896 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nt2WsPmKaPEp for ; Tue, 21 Jun 2022 20:10:47 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org 8545E606FF Received: from mail-oa1-x2d.google.com (mail-oa1-x2d.google.com [IPv6:2001:4860:4864:20::2d]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8545E606FF for ; Tue, 21 Jun 2022 20:10:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oa1-x2d.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-101d96fe0a5so10302039fac.2 for ; Tue, 21 Jun 2022 13:10:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=voskuil-org.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version:subject:date:message-id :references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=dQGGNNxxRXar55StV18MNqpkjoEpZ0SPqFIcwYamuuA=; b=SF6tvDe6yvjGtFO5DwOFrmNJyyLF5rLYPC4VtN+/4IhorI9tCglzbz0F/+AWWHf9T0 h7Iff8TNqFVOIBWjWp7Wj/5sbtuCGDv1eBD6ipgiMmyY/D0xDcUPRTC3l2Kvef/qylDP jUxv5VJXpXDMzKgzUzKEShgo0xnMq7MMoVtU03OBWae4IRn8TzsEbqzu/dY7IAgeue2v EwKgmtG5Gn0LyszvYkEDs1i5xL7ICTVIVUM6/mzYfAyqb4MFeaROu9Em/utxM0LYZUMk 5rR3v19iCA76ZnVgO4Jfg/ayRhYZD6pNoe58CEl8TPSwdXcka5xEhJJ+nPaWy3xlLRpc yedg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version :subject:date:message-id:references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=dQGGNNxxRXar55StV18MNqpkjoEpZ0SPqFIcwYamuuA=; b=M1ZDbOqwpOZWwOTjegRkiFwFBX1mN9kZ7wSqODivO71ygJ5XAZhmFXQRVuYq3R7Vqf Sdei36nlDqje5SO3i5hyvccXwK/LnHIaO44jVKxAirYY8gNYjfkfp0cUYuGm4XuvWGDz HK85qnaH4wAEHGEN+6eDcJiCZbPVhGLz0RfPaCIVnpGW8i85CWpIh6c0qCSYWBHgs4jg +JLDWdqFfrDMQKm7k0QHyzDzThHUBC4xU0Zq9pdd/mQkYl7e0esBUYs2WVsbkEd+jM6k GBCPVTEJ7c4CR8/jaOj1+/l6WQlbGmPD8fqN/oj+75XH+9DUeEozfywQm681iLUrHfVz tLMQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora8OSoxElN0ELYVg49nLh1UiJefQ8GelxOmfErVm95yxdU3CeUrS H0eVhnn6bXqAkbmz08ukTEclpw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1sf+u87qB+2C5ryJOJBX1pRy+cbP5fjqTaWex4TYNZ2M2KLYwoZ60u5Ki7n9PKp3cX9WJlr0g== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:3854:b0:104:8f90:35f6 with SMTP id z20-20020a056870385400b001048f9035f6mr2079756oal.153.1655842246393; Tue, 21 Jun 2022 13:10:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtpclient.apple ([2600:380:c04d:c590:300b:cc05:5212:9a8f]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r3-20020a056870734300b000e686d1386dsm9588156oal.7.2022.06.21.13.10.45 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 21 Jun 2022 13:10:45 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-CF7771C0-E5BA-4159-A36C-3B925F5114CC Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Eric Voskuil Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2022 13:10:43 -0700 Message-Id: <8E13E507-55F8-480B-A1A9-2643BC9C1C48@voskuil.org> References: In-Reply-To: To: Keagan McClelland , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (19F77) Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2022 20:10:49 -0000 --Apple-Mail-CF7771C0-E5BA-4159-A36C-3B925F5114CC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > On Jun 21, 2022, at 12:28, Keagan McClelland via bitcoin-dev wrote: >=20 > =EF=BB=BF > > The PoW security of Bitcoin benefits all Bitcoin users, proportional to t= he > value of BTC they hold; if Bitcoin blocks aren't reliably created the valu= e of > *all* BTC goes down. It doesn't make sense for the entire cost of that sec= urity > to be paid for on a per-tx basis. Actually it does. People who transact are realizing the benefit of money - t= he avoidance of barter costs. Those who never transact, never realize any be= nefit. > And there's a high chance paying for it on a > per-tx basis won't work anyway due to lack of consistent demand. >=20 > FWIW I prefer the demurrage route. Having something with finite supply as a= means of measuring economic activity is unprecedented and I believe deeply i= mportant. I'm sympathetic to the argument that the security of the chain sho= uld not be solely the responsibility of transactors. Chain security - censorship resistance (as opposed to individual double-spen= d security), is entirely dependent upon tx fees. > We realize the value of money on receipt, hold *and* spend and it would be= appropriate for there to be a balance of fees to that effect. There is zero point in saving if you never spend. You can instead just burn y= our coin. > While inflation may be simpler to implement (just chop off the last few ha= lvings), I think it would be superior (on the assumption that such a hodl ta= x was necessary) to keep the supply fixed and have people's utxo balances de= cay, at least at the level of the UX. A hoard decays naturally due to opportunity cost. Investing it requires tran= saction to invest, and transaction to earn (profit), and transaction to retu= rn it (interest). > But also none of this should be reasons we don't improve Bitcoin's value (= and therefore demand) Demand is the only reason we save, and eventually transacting is the only mo= tivation for saving. No transacting implies no demand - and no security. e > Keagan >=20 >> On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 2:42 AM Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev wrote: >>=20 >>=20 >>> On Sun, Jun 19, 2022 at 2:04 PM Manuel Costa via bitcoin-dev wrote: >>> if we start seeing issues with block rewards being too low to maintain a= cceptable security, we're going to have multiple solutions being implemented= for it, and definitely a hard fork to indefinitely maintain some degree of b= lock subsidy >>=20 >> if we failed to first try increasing block demand with advanced transacti= on support, it would seem like we were just throwing money and growth away t= o support one narrative (simplicty of function), while destroying another (f= inite supply)=20 >>=20 >> if stuff like covenant support and mweb gets us higher fees, with stuff l= ike on-chain mixing protocols, vaults, and higher utility, it might be more t= han enough to sustain bitcoin on fees alone forever >> =20 >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev --Apple-Mail-CF7771C0-E5BA-4159-A36C-3B925F5114CC Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Jun 21, 2022, at 12:28,= Keagan McClelland via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org= > wrote:

=EF=BB=BF
> The PoW security of Bitcoin benefits all= Bitcoin users, proportional to the
value of BTC they hold; if Bitcoin bl= ocks aren't reliably created the value of
*all* BTC goes down. It doesn't= make sense for the entire cost of that security
to be paid for on a per-= tx basis.

Actually it does. Peop= le who transact are realizing the benefit of money - the avoidance of barter= costs. Those who never transact, never realize any benefit.

And there's a high ch= ance paying for it on a
per-tx basis won't work anyway due to lack of con= sistent demand.

FWIW I prefer the demurrage route. Having= something with finite supply as a means of measuring economic activity is u= nprecedented and I believe deeply important. I'm sympathetic to the argument= that the security of the chain should not be solely the responsibility of t= ransactors.

Chain security= - censorship resistance (as opposed to individual double-spend security), i= s entirely dependent upon tx fees.

We realize the value of money on receipt, h= old *and* spend and it would be appropriate for there to be a balance of fee= s to that effect.

There is= zero point in saving if you never spend. You can instead just burn your coi= n.

While inflation may be simpler to implement (just chop off the last few ha= lvings), I think it would be superior (on the assumption that such a hodl ta= x was necessary) to keep the supply fixed and have people's utxo balances de= cay, at least at the level of the UX.
A hoard decays naturally due to opportunity cost. Investing it r= equires transaction to invest, and transaction to earn (profit), and transac= tion to return it (interest).

But also none of this should be reasons we don't= improve Bitcoin's value (and therefore demand)

Demand is the only reason we save, and eventually tran= sacting is the only motivation for saving. No transacting implies no demand -= and no security.

e

Keagan

On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 2= :42 AM Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:


On Sun, Jun 19, 2022 at 2:04 PM Manuel Costa via bitcoin-d= ev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
 if we st= art seeing issues with block rewards being too low to maintain acceptable se= curity, we're going to have multiple solutions being implemented for it, and= definitely a hard fork to indefinitely maintain some degree of block subsid= y

if we failed to first try incr= easing block demand with advanced transaction support, it would seem like we= were just throwing money and growth away to support one narrative (simplict= y of function), while destroying another (finite supply) 

if stuff like covenant support and mweb gets us higher fees= , with stuff like on-chain mixing protocols, vaults, and higher utility= , it might be more than enough to sustain bitcoin on fees alone forever
 
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
b= itcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailma= n/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoi= n-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev<= /span>
= --Apple-Mail-CF7771C0-E5BA-4159-A36C-3B925F5114CC--