Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70FC3C002D for ; Sun, 12 Jun 2022 13:02:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BBFD83EDC for ; Sun, 12 Jun 2022 13:02:54 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.399 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=q32-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WwHl3Yz5eVCr for ; Sun, 12 Jun 2022 13:02:53 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-lj1-x236.google.com (mail-lj1-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::236]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DEE983E34 for ; Sun, 12 Jun 2022 13:02:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lj1-x236.google.com with SMTP id g25so3650792ljm.2 for ; Sun, 12 Jun 2022 06:02:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=q32-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=6Z4x0LNFHjG4qWlRP0xtjQ6ByD+6qzNGAB1QA5EcJIM=; b=r8XOKrhQwei01vPxjK/BEMIrehk0IAoFWfmX9P9y1JQAPuskohnJ102vVn5u9YMpUI UzeuckGRYxGCkmiB3jGwBcX8kE+cJsiNBVwKrgqYfHPOjMq0EUnQao4KbwvInZVUT8hO OsYsJ2sK3tBsh15soJNBaWOyGI+C7P2DC3Rqh+wGgz2+EIqo9XtWCeWvG/7a2u59UMSM iLDB0j6ItlPhPBftzrNC3MWflxVUthQB0ha2LOBG6f6LtFvxhEsbQi0/Wz3QWNHSipC6 6LkkNha+v+iYpKMlncU3YYprvqBgl+kKL2PlBHxUDDSgIMHC+Aqw52NvMrFXJjQ+Hf4V H9lQ== 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=6Z4x0LNFHjG4qWlRP0xtjQ6ByD+6qzNGAB1QA5EcJIM=; b=Ro3bZIZqMZMsOmJT5qaJ8maeOdS5c96punkf1eYwvG0bd/CdpYGcF06iRzdgtvBdtD gZuXlWVQyhHo0Qa3Hj6hxDrkfyXGzyieRDtNGAZX2/kcsgicmjQiMG1uEpRwR/1GLdF1 QT6S5Ice8XjF8pNIURXyVfvicmYO9mS3nQ1Hh/ZaVEgi1n+MVCnXDAKWdB+8GppewYXZ JsSx1nG2VjFQLlu+tJUOHm9whnv+1tMH7gdFIO4rsWRFhtzFOKakLDVEfIfqTFkKrqva rdrtzKb3TZAkfDKbPZQw2FDvGIFPWJXWyyt3a3ZK845DvVdafvAKwB6Mn61g0EUWW9/9 4+hQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532r9Kdw66PFkoFszW+9AJXYMO8MK8RU1damWV4ms5tdq/6lFwBo zg9EYMxXVsAhsnedQjhfn/wOjyCf48RaUKKJonCiZRE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyu8KIsfzAAF50MMo150N2c0fTBU1JpKBtYiFzlCOkTzlA9+lODvgY2WKJ2su6+UkB5pXWB2KQAnRbI+4YjwR8= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:874a:0:b0:255:7b02:8f26 with SMTP id q10-20020a2e874a000000b002557b028f26mr26179911ljj.320.1655038971003; Sun, 12 Jun 2022 06:02:51 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Erik Aronesty Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2022 09:02:38 -0400 Message-ID: To: Peter Todd Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f4c9e705e13fc989" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 12 Jun 2022 15:52:00 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion , John Carvalho 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, 12 Jun 2022 13:02:54 -0000 --000000000000f4c9e705e13fc989 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Yes Although I'm guessing most would agree that would be worse. I certainly would choose to add fee generating features over inflation Probably most other people would too On Sat, Jun 11, 2022, 11:36 PM Peter Todd wrote: > On Mon, Jun 06, 2022 at 09:02:18AM -0400, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > Maintaining the security of the protocol is squarely the responsibility > of > > the Bitcoin software and the core developers > > > > Continued demand for block space is critical for Bitcoin's security. > > Only because the block reward goes away. If it was made to continue > indefinitely - most likely with an inflation hard fork - demand for block > space > would not be critical to Bitcoin's security. > > -- > https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org > --000000000000f4c9e705e13fc989 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Yes


Although I'm guessing most would agree that would b= e worse.

I certainly wou= ld choose to add fee generating features over inflation

Probably most other people would too
<= div dir=3D"auto">


On Sat, Jun 11, 2022= , 11:36 PM Peter Todd <pete@petert= odd.org> wrote:
On Mon, Jun = 06, 2022 at 09:02:18AM -0400, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Maintaining the security of the protocol is squarely the responsibilit= y of
> the Bitcoin software and the core developers
>
> Continued demand for block space is critical for Bitcoin's securit= y.

Only because the block reward goes away. If it was made to continue
indefinitely - most likely with an inflation hard fork - demand for block s= pace
would not be critical to Bitcoin's security.

--
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
--000000000000f4c9e705e13fc989--