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
|
Return-Path: <alicexbt@protonmail.com>
Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83A41C002D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 10 Jul 2022 16:38:27 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D63460A78
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 10 Jul 2022 16:38:27 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org 5D63460A78
Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org;
dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com header.i=@protonmail.com
header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=protonmail3 header.b=RwVgFf6N
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.102
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.102 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,
RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id 4TKuy4EktdlH
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 10 Jul 2022 16:38:26 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org 4F26A60761
Received: from mail-4324.protonmail.ch (mail-4324.protonmail.ch [185.70.43.24])
by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F26A60761
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 10 Jul 2022 16:38:25 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2022 16:38:11 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=protonmail3; t=1657471101; x=1657730301;
bh=bGQwMt8m7sYHFutMQl/QykdDfV+FLKcnAJFdF2Y0tAk=;
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=RwVgFf6NN0j9tXYMtFj1DEFp6A7yNS/p2CccIWUdmJ4uycb9LGBi6wIL3UMh6gBwk
iZ166/ANGYpz3MGsNVPe3UyL29pStAQSE+AqvBZ43p3HV30olHSezd2DPB+Y/F77A9
sbDgesNcfPU11pIYdzykGPONdvan1fsqKVcDM25eZ++p0DzF94/8ySNrKWAnCYnqB2
w+IpC2dEF/U0/MmhI9iMAHYSXyVKkd8GFX8zm92RcBXYlN6oYUBMb5KMVo+mLjW4kB
2PExl/fIVw6XoarcBBwSvjj4Ax3bvK5zL1IE5BjuCYwYDp8zveRCmJQLNN2iZWV4SR
ZElRJO/lpW6Kg==
To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
From: alicexbt <alicexbt@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: alicexbt <alicexbt@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <ekfFIuJImI7zARk2QOqLrSsIU96zV00ZTLLaeqymZM02wWLDKR1a0L-Ggxye08kdcKizWuVPRUztGVmFxpjtGBBprPDhEVKurGLl2leGL1M=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <eFdBAPulC6BoW5zBt30Mq4fXhnRzVENMjsfGrj1Yzbi-Z-wje21pCwEpMQ6Tc27m8LdhMN_66UX3Ze1BNAU9rsgqF-1JRV40s1QU9zSJ6js=@protonmail.com>
References: <D50AEC8C-4EEC-4C17-8626-87C651F1AA66@voskuil.org>
<6xuj-ljJ9hvME-TIgWHmfPpad4aJ-1zTYSH1NBuFL_gi-6hJHMayWLEAhcEyw_lqmkR24ee8uMIAH6n4TDguk_5fJ8och99Em3m5y1R6brE=@protonmail.com>
<eFdBAPulC6BoW5zBt30Mq4fXhnRzVENMjsfGrj1Yzbi-Z-wje21pCwEpMQ6Tc27m8LdhMN_66UX3Ze1BNAU9rsgqF-1JRV40s1QU9zSJ6js=@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 17:31:25 +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 16:38:27 -0000
Sorry, I made some wrong calculations in the last email. I think the change=
would just be required in validation.cpp:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/a7f3479ba3fda4c9fb29bd7080165744c02=
ee921/src/validation.cpp#L1472
/dev/fd0
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
------- Original Message -------
On Sunday, July 10th, 2022 at 2:17 PM, alicexbt via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-de=
v@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Hi ZmnSCPxj,
>
> > Thus, we should instead prepare for a future where the block subsidy mu=
st be removed, possibly before the existing schedule removes it, in case a =
majority coalition of miner ever decides to censor particular transactions =
without community consensus.
> > Fortunately forcing the block subsidy to 0 is a softfork and thus easie=
r to deploy.
>
>
> `consensus.nSubsidyHalvingInterval` for mainnet in [chainparams.cpp][1] c=
an 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 sur=
e if this will be a soft fork.
>
> I doubt there will be consensus for it because all the [projections and p=
redictability][2] about bitcoin(currency) would be affected by this change.=
Maybe everyone can agree with this change if most of the miners start bein=
g 'compliant' like one of the coinjoin implementation.
>
> [1]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/chainparams.cpp#L=
66
> [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-=
dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
>
>
>
> > Good morning e, and list,
> >
> > > Yet you posted several links which made that specific correlation, to=
which I was responding.
> > >
> > > Math cannot prove how much coin is =E2=80=9Clost=E2=80=9D, and even i=
f it was provable that the amount of coin lost converges to the amount prod=
uced, it is of no consequence - for the reasons I=E2=80=99ve already pointe=
d 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 censorshi=
p resistance, not on price.
> >
> > To clarify about censorship resistance and perpetual issuance ("tail em=
ission"):
> >
> > * Suppose I have two blockchains, one with a constant block subsidy, an=
d one which had a block subsidy but the block subsidy has become negligible=
or zero.
> > * Now consider a censoring miner.
> > * If the miner rejects particular transactions (i.e. "censors") the min=
er loses out on the fees of those transactions.
> > * Presumably, the miner does this because it gains other benefits from =
the censorship, economically equal or better to the earnings lost.
> > * If the blockchain had a block subsidy, then the loss the miner incurs=
is small relative to the total earnings of each block.
> > * If the blockchain had 0 block subsidy, then the loss the miner incurs=
is large relative to the total earnings of each block.
> > * Thus, in the latter situation, the external benefit the miner gains f=
rom the censorship has to be proportionately larger than in the first situa=
tion.
> >
> > Basically, the block subsidy is a market distortion: the block subsidy =
erodes 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=
censor coin movements.
> > Only per-transaction fees have an incentive to not censor coin movement=
s.
> >
> > Thus, we should instead prepare for a future where the block subsidy mu=
st be removed, possibly before the existing schedule removes it, in case a =
majority coalition of miner ever decides to censor particular transactions =
without community consensus.
> > Fortunately forcing the block subsidy to 0 is a softfork and thus easie=
r to deploy.
> >
> > Regards,
> > ZmnSCPxj
> > _______________________________________________
> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
|
