Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D45B8C002D for ; Sun, 3 Jul 2022 10:31:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9678840222 for ; Sun, 3 Jul 2022 10:31:08 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org 9678840222 Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20210112 header.b=lDVXsxlg X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.848 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.848 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GwlQXXLxgyCP for ; Sun, 3 Jul 2022 10:31:06 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org 3812640017 Received: from mail-ed1-x532.google.com (mail-ed1-x532.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::532]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3812640017 for ; Sun, 3 Jul 2022 10:31:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ed1-x532.google.com with SMTP id x10so852735edd.13 for ; Sun, 03 Jul 2022 03:31:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=9ml4Xli1fBZ/8Ixel3qkx9EZb9ZoPThiO8+Ug+cxh8w=; b=lDVXsxlgzGzxqsYW4HuBFqLW/Z2s5Wgvd9O/83s2tgQIcntUDpPA4+WoFCxx7MLbGv JdJKYnXxjqL1wX54nO326mVfQUKefuyotsDtNI5DN87xzcjsjKEIcvrRYwcWXElBXPPd FFvMz7t9IGIrvR1P7TwvL2J4NZ5XPjWVpC+m0ySlrh0OPoTtweQXqYWurG+RzQ6cxDr5 X6TdTpEB1/9EE5iLZFnGPzJ67x9kYDEbAHIPLHRaGSYYY5twhEnIDN8dYFUEe0Tvli/X SRSCS8K9d6yL1lr/DX6hJ7jMhZJBNUDp6adPiigV9YsJXBt8WZh8fEkFWohkbqnIPyPK Iq6Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=9ml4Xli1fBZ/8Ixel3qkx9EZb9ZoPThiO8+Ug+cxh8w=; b=gzgHWA0oSsBZCw/ty3Vmhb7LCIKRkT0TBaH7W7KaXPROb9q/h0RyxfV6Jz6mb8qZOM ycj3yGfTiBJBhRKfvktQJxHoxUoaxoPrk6SoPlmWhNBWRskiwhrCTmtbfIjHwQUCHg0C HCc3Sk5Xr2xfXBZANDjYC0yKyuxLiwZ7gY+BZpOlrW/xTSZB5v2cDctJyjU/VUSAzJ0Q tmyXr3iBJ+kI68G6/FDVGRXen8hgShNpKiOMkMoXxEnGbmFk5NEfYlCBk2vE9lMN9362 gejYc/OIJBtJ4Cn+O7FkTjCQrZZzJ3vj3r6HUwfL5zbNnnYxXMTqdwK/TQzbRgdk6Jdj anAQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora9iPNedSxFSwbGoiEwvxlCaeo2Z7w1e0GXmmLPEY0rWiwkEYaHA 0KGBWkdhZIR/06xuliodlCEPCjS66c6vKfj5suY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1sTB17TlfhIzvrSQqg3kUV+h84uXE4yqTAcG9fBhMzOdulYM+EVjbBELz/ZRs9m8WHWYpOPQF5FPnCIaX4pj+I= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:c47:b0:437:ce2d:c30d with SMTP id cs7-20020a0564020c4700b00437ce2dc30dmr31169496edb.395.1656844264305; Sun, 03 Jul 2022 03:31:04 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Giuseppe B Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2022 12:30:52 +0200 Message-ID: To: Peter Todd , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d277de05e2e41df8" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 03 Jul 2022 11:01:57 +0000 Cc: Billy Tetrud 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: Sun, 03 Jul 2022 10:31:08 -0000 --000000000000d277de05e2e41df8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Bitcoin's finite supply is the main argument for people investing in it, the whole narrative around bitcoin is based on its finite supply. While it has its flaws and basically condemns bitcoin to be only used as a store of value (and not as a currency), I don't think it's worth questioning it at this point. Just my 2 sats. Giuseppe. On Sun, Jul 3, 2022, 11:44 AM Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 12:44:11PM +0200, Kate Salazar via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > > On an idealistic level, I agree with Keagan that it would make sense to > > > have "a balance of fees to that effect". I think doing that would be > > > technically/economically optimal. However, I think there is an enormous > > > benefit to having a cultural aversion to monetary inflation and the > > > consequences of convincing the bitcoin community that inflation is ok > could > > > have unintended negative consequences (not to mention how difficult > > > convincing the community would be in the first place). There's also the > > > economic distortion that inflation causes that has a negative effect > which > > > should also be considered. The idea of decaying utxo value is > interesting > > > to consider, but it would not solve the economic distortion that > > > monetary inflation causes, because that distortion is a result of > monetary > > > devaluation (which decaying utxos would be a form of). Then again, > maybe in > > > this case the distortion of inflation would actually be a correction - > > > correcting for the externality of benefit received by holders. I'm > > > stream-of-consciousnessing a bit, but anyways, I suspect its not worth > the > > > trouble to perfect the distribution of bitcoin blockchain security > costs to > > > include holders. Tho, if I were to go back in time and influence how > > > bitcoin was designed, I might advocate for it. > > > > > > > Pool operators are free to request larger fees from older utxos, or from > > all utxos, or from newer utxos, at their judgement, looking at the > > blockspace demand census and at what the other pool operators are doing. > > This is not consensus, it's policy. It's not a technology problem, it's > > solved above in the social layer. > > If pool operators can easily collude like you are proposing, we have a > serious > problem with pool centralization. > > What you would actually expect in a healthy Bitcoin ecosystem is for some > pool > operators to defect, and them winding up mining those transactions for > market-based fees, eventually forcing the pool operators who are trying to > charge a discriminatory premium to give up. > > -- > https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --000000000000d277de05e2e41df8 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Bitcoin's finite supply is the main argument for peop= le investing in it, the whole narrative around bitcoin is based on its fini= te supply. While it has its flaws and basically condemns bitcoin to be only= used as a store of value (and not as a currency), I don't think it'= ;s worth questioning it at this point.=C2=A0

Just my 2 sats.=C2=A0

Giuseppe.=C2=A0

On Sun, Jul 3, 2022, 11:44 AM Peter Todd = via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 12:44:11PM +0200, Kate Salazar = via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > On an idealistic level, I agree with Keagan that it would make se= nse to
> > have "a balance of fees to that effect". I think doing = that would be
> > technically/economically optimal. However, I think there is an en= ormous
> > benefit to having a cultural aversion to monetary inflation and t= he
> > consequences of convincing the bitcoin community that inflation i= s ok could
> > have unintended negative consequences (not to mention how difficu= lt
> > convincing the community would be in the first place). There'= s also the
> > economic distortion that inflation causes that has a negative eff= ect which
> > should also be considered. The idea of decaying utxo value is int= eresting
> > to consider, but it would not solve the economic distortion that<= br> > > monetary inflation causes, because that distortion is a result of= monetary
> > devaluation (which decaying utxos would be a form of). Then again= , maybe in
> > this case the distortion of inflation would actually be a correct= ion -
> > correcting for the externality of benefit received by holders. I&= #39;m
> > stream-of-consciousnessing a bit, but anyways, I suspect its not = worth the
> > trouble to perfect the distribution of bitcoin blockchain securit= y costs to
> > include holders. Tho, if I were to go back in time and influence = how
> > bitcoin was designed, I might advocate for it.
> >
>
> Pool operators are free to request larger fees from older utxos, or fr= om
> all utxos, or from newer utxos, at their judgement, looking at the
> blockspace demand census and at what the other pool operators are doin= g.
> This is not consensus, it's policy. It's not a technology prob= lem, it's
> solved above in the social layer.

If pool operators can easily collude like you are proposing, we have a seri= ous
problem with pool centralization.

What you would actually expect in a healthy Bitcoin ecosystem is for some p= ool
operators to defect, and them winding up mining those transactions for
market-based fees, eventually forcing the pool operators who are trying to<= br> charge a discriminatory premium to give up.

--
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundati= on.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--000000000000d277de05e2e41df8--