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
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
|
Return-Path: <jk_14@op.pl>
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::133])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35E71C002D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 15 Aug 2022 21:47:06 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0852B403F8
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 15 Aug 2022 21:47:06 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org 0852B403F8
Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org;
dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=op.pl header.i=@op.pl header.a=rsa-sha256
header.s=2011 header.b=qEixNcC2
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8,
DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1,
DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, 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 SnEc1yPFyVri
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 15 Aug 2022 21:47:04 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org 630304032B
Received: from smtpo97.poczta.onet.pl (smtpo97.poczta.onet.pl
[213.180.149.150])
by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 630304032B
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 15 Aug 2022 21:47:04 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pmq1v.m5r2.onet (pmq1v.m5r2.onet [10.174.32.67])
by smtp.poczta.onet.pl (Onet) with ESMTP id 4M67Cg2XVFzlgF6g;
Mon, 15 Aug 2022 23:46:55 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=op.pl; s=2011;
t=1660600015; bh=MTfdN+2aYYW4jM9HvwovZLVYhmJYAPyUcWr4gYfM7Jo=;
h=From:To:Date:Subject:From;
b=qEixNcC2bME2h4vD+8zKc870DCgCBFs58vH2DQ+yuypxISLFc49ToGrhB4Tj9SUMB
kUVP+VYTBADZzCEzHHvBQ2SSmG36gPl7Xb1ORbnphCEOoz4a3vObRMIfSCTiU1Gcg8
VuRQqqC+L6AhD0wdf7o4KZgOlbFLPTQT3HmCLfaM=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Received: from [89.64.65.189] by pmq1v.m5r2.onet via HTTP id ;
Mon, 15 Aug 2022 23:46:55 +0200
From: jk_14@op.pl
X-Priority: 3
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
"pete@petertodd.org" <pete@petertodd.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2022 23:46:52 +0200
Message-Id: <166771656-fdf60b77a66e05a55a2e75479a31e5f7@pmq1v.m5r2.onet>
X-Mailer: onet.poczta
X-Onet-PMQ: <jk_144@onet.pl>;89.64.65.189;PL;2
X-ONET_PL-MDA-SEGREGATION: 0
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 16 Aug 2022 01:59:02 +0000
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: Mon, 15 Aug 2022 21:47:06 -0000
> New blog post:
> https://petertodd.org/2022/surprisingly-tail-emission-is-not-inflationary
Tail emission is inevitable, Milton Friedman says...
The key thing here in my opinion is to properly understand the seriousness =
of the situation.
"There is no such thing as a free lunch" - is definitely helpful quote here.
There are two edge cases.
1. while starting given cryptocurrency
- the annual inflation is huge, nobody (in developed/mature monetary system=
) would like to keep such kind of money with e.g. 100% annual inflation rat=
e, but from the other side there is no problem for transaction fee to be fr=
ee of charge here
2. while given cryptocurrency is switching off the block reward, in suppose=
d "mature phase":
- the annual inflation is zero, everyone want to hoard such money, transact=
ion fees must carry the whole security of the system
In the first edge case: active users have got "free lunches" and passive us=
ers (i.e. holders) are paying for it (by "inflation tax")
In the second edge case: passive users have got "free lunches" and active u=
sers should pay for it (by "transactional tax")
So far I only highlighted some maybe not very well recognized, but pure fac=
ts (it's not comfortable to contradict the facts...)
The reason people do pay in the first phase - is a hope/promise of system g=
rowth (future coin price appreciation =3D profit)
The problem in the second phase is that there is no real incentive for peop=
le to pay for other's free lunches.
Any wishful thinking that most (or even: any significant part) of holders w=
ill resign from a free lunch and will buy and run ASIC mining equipment at =
loss - is just a delusional perspective. It's well proven by game theory an=
d what says us the Prisoner's Dilemma about it. For better understanding - =
here is my modified version of Prisoner's Dilemma short description:
"The Prisoner's Dilemma is a standard example of a game analyzed in game th=
eory that shows why completely rational large holders might not cooperate, =
even if it appears that it is in their best interests to do so."
I'm pretty sure we will have a textbook case of Prisoner's Dilemma here.
As a useful example - let's assume that fees don't compensate low block rew=
ard. Btw, right now a single transaction fee need to be $60 to compensate t=
hat (and it will only get worse in time). System is not inclusive with $60 =
per transaction fee. Only rich people will use it. Another possible scenari=
o is a x100 drop of network hashrate to catch a previous fee levels. The ne=
twork is x100 less secure, then. It really doesn't matter if this process i=
s spread over the long run...
So, for example - let every 10 BTC holding needs to be secured by one Antmi=
ner S19 running.
In an ideal world every large bitcoin holder will run proper amount of ASIC=
s and run it at loss.
The holders of less than 10 BTC - will organize "group pays", this time for=
sharing loss (electricity costs)
Exactly the same way like people made "group buys" of ASIC hardware in 2013.
I hope it's clear that in the real world it WILL NOT work. People will simp=
ly think, that there is only a tiny punishment for betrayal.
Noone will waste his renewable energy on unprofitable Antminer while he/she=
can sell this energy for the market price. Even Bitcoin can't beat the hum=
an nature.
Thanks to Milton Friedman - we can easily say that situation with "free lun=
ches" (at least for some part of users) - is an unhealthy state of financia=
l system.
And may last only exceptionally for short period of time, and definitely no=
t as a default state. System must be sustainable and time to accept that th=
ere is a real problem here (or: an elephant in the room - but maybe not suc=
h invisible like was before).
The good news is a natural solution exists. Bitcoin can solve this issue na=
tural way.
While decreasing block reward and moving from the first edge case to the se=
cond one - the system naturally cross the Area of Balance.
And healthy system should stay somewhere in such area. And that's exactly w=
hat Monero did. But they did it arbitrally, at 0.9% level.
Bitcoin is able to do it much better - because empirically.
There is a simple trigger if the system is leaving an Area of Balance and c=
ross the line of Phase 2 with "free lunches". The network difficulty / glob=
al network hashrate chart.
Four years after some particular halving (in 2028, 2032 or later - no matte=
r when in fact) - we will (definitely) see difficulty is not recovered duri=
ng four long years.
This is a big red light. It means that halvings starts to be destructive to=
the network security. =
Something what became destructive to the network - must be removed. Halving=
must be removed in such moment. Moment determined empirically - what is go=
od thing. Satoshi Nakamoto wasn't able to properly predict when this moment=
may appear, but we are in better situation.
"Bitcoin to the moon" (and any other pro-21M hardcap shortsighted slogans) =
- must have a lower priority than network security/health.
I'm sure Satoshi would agree with it. Of course, someone may set up such en=
vironment, where holders (i.e. passive users) have got a free lunches
and security of network is based on active users' shoulders only. Someone c=
ould even insist that it is quite fair...
But please don't expect a lack of impact for the network security where not=
all, but only a part of users - participate in supporting network health.
Many people don't realise a simple fact: keeping destructive halvings in su=
ch situation above, just for maximising appreciation of already hoarded coi=
ns
- is counterproductive. Because the network security is decreasing.
We have a lot of time yet to educate people about it - for reaching common =
consensus for halvings removal with "ease".
We should probably use Milton Friedman's quote and highlight that balanced =
system with 0.45% / 0.225% / 0.1125% (?) annual inflation rate (and slowly =
decreasing)
- is still enormously better than any surrounding fiat system. But system s=
till balanced and stable - and not in spiral of death...
=E2=80=9CBitcoin should have had a 0.1% or 1% monetary inflation tax to pay=
for security,=E2=80=9D Peter said long time ago, further arguing bitcoin w=
ill die if it doesn=E2=80=99t change the limit.
I fully agree with Peter. The halvings should be removed in case it starts =
to be destructive to the network security (lack of hashrate recovery during=
long 4 years after given halving). Because that means bitcoin system has r=
eached equilibrium / saturation on a globe scale level. The evolutionary pa=
th is the best path.
The worst path is: overcomplicated constructs, completely unclear for Avera=
ge Joe. Additional merge-mining coins, whatever etc. - just to achieve the =
same final goal.
KISS =3D Keep It Simple. Halving removal is the most honest, simplest and m=
ost understandable way to make every bitcoin pasive user to participate in =
keeping Bitcoin network secure. It just force the rule, that someone pay pr=
oportionally to amount of bitcoins he/she hold, and all participants are su=
re that everybody participate (no Prisoner's Dilemma, what is crucial matte=
r)
Yes, that means: hard fork. But as written above - Bitcoin will die without=
the solution.
Bitcoin may be also out of sudden in a deadly risk from quantum computers. =
In such circumstances everyone (or: almost, i.e. everyone who cares) - woul=
d immediately download a quantum resistant, freshly released bitcoin wallet=
, no doubt. And these two dangers are similar at least in one aspect: both =
will cause the spiral of death.
Widespread consensus would be the best scenario, but from the other side: a=
fork always shows retrospectively, who was right (BCH turmoil in 2017)
Regards
Jaroslaw
P.S some other resources yet:
"Friedman originally proposed a fixed monetary rule, called Friedman's k-pe=
rcent rule, where the money supply would be automatically increased by a fi=
xed percentage per year. Under this rule, there would be no leeway for the =
central reserve bank, as money supply increases could be determined "by a c=
omputer", and business could anticipate all money supply changes. With othe=
r monetarists he believed that the active manipulation of the money supply =
or its growth rate is more likely to destabilise than stabilise the economy.
Most monetarists oppose the gold standard. Friedman, for example, viewed a =
pure gold standard as impractical.[9] For example, whereas one of the benef=
its of the gold standard is that the intrinsic limitations to the growth of=
the money supply by the use of gold would prevent inflation, if the growth=
of population or increase in trade outpaces the money supply, there would =
be no way to counteract deflation and reduced liquidity (and any attendant =
recession) except for the mining of more gold"
no block reward =3D> reduced liquidity (reduced number of transactions) =
=3D> network security in spiral of death
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetarism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman%27s_k-percent_rule
https://twitter.com/hasufl/status/1511470668457652224
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
|