path: root/22/7655206412c90d2f4cdc99f65fdb31090ee85b

Return-Path: <alicexbt@protonmail.com>
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E521FC002D
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sun, 10 Jul 2022 14:17:49 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3424409D0
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sun, 10 Jul 2022 14:17:49 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org B3424409D0
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=mjnWXBPY
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.101
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.101 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,
 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 R7K0kOyhZj3R
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sun, 10 Jul 2022 14:17:47 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 1EF7E40984
Received: from mail-4325.protonmail.ch (mail-4325.protonmail.ch [185.70.43.25])
 by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1EF7E40984
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sun, 10 Jul 2022 14:17:46 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2022 14:17:36 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
 s=protonmail3; t=1657462664; x=1657721864;
 bh=CvlyPFheh5ZeCZrvGMiJhu4fhYW8Qu0D43AK4gJiH/Q=;
 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=mjnWXBPYwniOar1EnoDJT9k3aBcqoSvhLtt3M73erh9x0vhatrZVAntu/r5Ma6y+W
 cFRPtxv/fstyLnN7FHu6KvJIo075V8FUakpEGex5CLqKSpEZRiswVSH20YhobPYrdQ
 VccpPQFfddjAW0tFxan+K+7Zr8lN2ylVIha1lz4uiOrxwSoNTKtsLpijGNtmNT5tQv
 flTC0VPT82v0PDG3qAlIer/EVIk/Z41XHyzgxkvKl8ggrAa+gfkUzoUa5BqsO2dT2s
 BY7wp8CWM6qQtX49c2TqPkRyFH5fhM8xDTeN2kzZWnY+3x4FLtRcnekOtJdfoyjH8H
 2ffUBMx3YnUdQ==
To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
From: alicexbt <alicexbt@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: alicexbt <alicexbt@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <eFdBAPulC6BoW5zBt30Mq4fXhnRzVENMjsfGrj1Yzbi-Z-wje21pCwEpMQ6Tc27m8LdhMN_66UX3Ze1BNAU9rsgqF-1JRV40s1QU9zSJ6js=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <6xuj-ljJ9hvME-TIgWHmfPpad4aJ-1zTYSH1NBuFL_gi-6hJHMayWLEAhcEyw_lqmkR24ee8uMIAH6n4TDguk_5fJ8och99Em3m5y1R6brE=@protonmail.com>
References: <D50AEC8C-4EEC-4C17-8626-87C651F1AA66@voskuil.org>
 <6xuj-ljJ9hvME-TIgWHmfPpad4aJ-1zTYSH1NBuFL_gi-6hJHMayWLEAhcEyw_lqmkR24ee8uMIAH6n4TDguk_5fJ8och99Em3m5y1R6brE=@protonmail.com>
Feedback-ID: 40602938:user:proton
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 10 Jul 2022 14:23:57 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
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: Sun, 10 Jul 2022 14:17:50 -0000

Hi ZmnSCPxj,


> 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.

`consensus.nSubsidyHalvingInterval` for mainnet in [chainparams.cpp][1] can=
 be decreased to 195000. This will reduce the number of halvings from 34 to=
 14 and subsidy will be 0 when it becomes less than 0.01 although not sure =
if this will be a soft fork.

I doubt there will be consensus for it because all the [projections and pre=
dictability][2] about bitcoin(currency) would be affected by this change. M=
aybe everyone can agree with this change if most of the miners start being =
'compliant' like one of the coinjoin implementation.

[1]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/chainparams.cpp#L66
[2]: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Controlled_supply


/dev/fd0

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

------- Original Message -------
On Saturday, July 9th, 2022 at 9:59 PM, ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-d=
ev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:


> Good morning e, and list,
>
> > Yet you posted several links which made that specific correlation, to w=
hich 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 produc=
ed, it is of no consequence - for the reasons I=E2=80=99ve already pointed =
out. The amount of market production has no impact on market price, just as=
 it does not with any other good.
> >
> > The reason to object to perpetual issuance is the impact on censorship =
resistance, not on price.
>
>
> To clarify about censorship resistance and perpetual issuance ("tail emis=
sion"):
>
> * Suppose I have two blockchains, one with a constant block subsidy, and =
one 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 er=
odes 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 ar=
e 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
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev