1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
|
Return-Path: <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B540C002D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 9 Jul 2022 21:59:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C559341572
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 9 Jul 2022 21:59:16 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org C559341572
Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org;
dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com header.i=@protonmail.com
header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=protonmail3 header.b=FxhgqADz
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.602
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.602 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_FROM=0.001,
FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001,
SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id BwjZlYzy9Ix2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 9 Jul 2022 21:59:15 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 8306A4155B
Received: from mail-4324.protonmail.ch (mail-4324.protonmail.ch [185.70.43.24])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8306A4155B
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 9 Jul 2022 21:59:14 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2022 21:59:06 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=protonmail3; t=1657403951; x=1657663151;
bh=6S7Qoxk6D45ErYRmrnmsISrCEmFCWFzqnd8QaU3z2ZQ=;
h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:
References:Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:
Feedback-ID:Message-ID;
b=FxhgqADzuTSb26cFlLDGO/YfOMaqwsKvoBfDWTfqkdMHy/6lUZmZ+pC8xnC/Wufr1
JeFnl1pNpLvtsvohxEe2SeeqzDQr+1ua79wcAuT+xJ68S4foJtoMxjxKQu8NOUYFPp
2fH3rPdQsowewxKb/FaPZq1VtsoTYjt3iP0A5huZ0JYxibkLoLNbH5cXxi08URjjTM
guEsIeC6E3xnBm5ZlYtkI9F0oTJcNInB3xi5WfEvMZktZ5ISTlpGy85GkZgccGT0fa
6cS1YllsPXZ42j/0bBafNvpdC5WQa/GA8ezlW+8KP/zo2a9EzLCpRyC3NuQGIa147Y
V/aajMCgeXZUw==
To: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <6xuj-ljJ9hvME-TIgWHmfPpad4aJ-1zTYSH1NBuFL_gi-6hJHMayWLEAhcEyw_lqmkR24ee8uMIAH6n4TDguk_5fJ8och99Em3m5y1R6brE=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <D50AEC8C-4EEC-4C17-8626-87C651F1AA66@voskuil.org>
References: <D50AEC8C-4EEC-4C17-8626-87C651F1AA66@voskuil.org>
Feedback-ID: 2872618:user:proton
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Surprisingly, Tail Emission Is Not Inflationary
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2022 21:59:17 -0000
Good morning e, and list,
> Yet you posted several links which made that specific correlation, to whi=
ch I was responding.
>
> Math cannot prove how much coin is =E2=80=9Clost=E2=80=9D, and even if it=
was provable that the amount of coin lost converges to the amount produced=
, it is of no consequence - for the reasons I=E2=80=99ve already pointed ou=
t. The amount of market production has no impact on market price, just as i=
t does not with any other good.
>
> The reason to object to perpetual issuance is the impact on censorship re=
sistance, not on price.
To clarify about censorship resistance and perpetual issuance ("tail emissi=
on"):
* Suppose I have two blockchains, one with a constant block subsidy, and on=
e which *had* a block subsidy but the block subsidy has become negligible o=
r zero.
* Now consider a censoring miner.
* If the miner rejects particular transactions (i.e. "censors") the miner=
loses out on the fees of those transactions.
* Presumably, the miner does this because it gains other benefits from th=
e censorship, economically equal or better to the earnings lost.
* If the blockchain had a block subsidy, then the loss the miner incurs i=
s small relative to the total earnings of each block.
* If the blockchain had 0 block subsidy, then the loss the miner incurs i=
s large relative to the total earnings of each block.
* Thus, in the latter situation, the external benefit the miner gains fro=
m the censorship has to be proportionately larger than in the first situati=
on.
Basically, the block subsidy is a market distortion: the block subsidy erod=
es the value of held coins to pay for the security of coins being moved.
But the block subsidy is still issued whether or not coins being moved are =
censored or not censored.
Thus, there is no incentive, considering *only* the block subsidy, to not c=
ensor coin movements.
Only per-transaction fees have an incentive to not censor coin movements.
Thus, we should instead prepare for a future where the block subsidy *must*=
be removed, possibly before the existing schedule removes it, in case a ma=
jority coalition of miner ever decides to censor particular transactions wi=
thout community consensus.
Fortunately forcing the block subsidy to 0 is a softfork and thus easier to=
deploy.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
|
