Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2022 09:57:31 +1000
From: Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <20220711235731.GD20899@erisian.com.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YsxXCQihhSrYuIfS@petertodd.org>
 <CAJowKgLDXr1ycGzCqRTe=iA_SQkchd1D4gtDD6o4gnK4dyn5dQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Surprisingly, Tail Emission Is Not Inflationary
Precedence: list

On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 08:56:04AM -0400, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > Alternatively, losses could be at a predictable rate that's entirely
> > different to the one Peter assumes.
> No, peter only assumes that there *is* a rate.

No, he assumes it's a constant rate. His integration step gives a
different result if lambda changes with t:
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=dN%2Fdt+%3D+k+-+lambda%28t%29*N

On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 12:59:53PM -0400, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Give me an example of an *actual* inflation rate you expect to see, given a
> disaster of a given magnitude.

All I was doing was saying your proof is incorrect (or, rather, relies
on a highly unrealistic assumption), since I hadn't seen anybody else
point that out already.

But even if the proof were correct, I don't think it provides a useful
mechanism (since there's no reason to think miners gaining all the coins
lost in a year will be sufficient for anything), and I don't really
think the "security budget" framework (ie, that the percentage of total
supply given to miners each year is what's important for security)
you're implicitly relying on is particularly meaningful.

So no, not particularly interested in diving into it any deeper.

Cheers,
aj