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
|
Return-Path: <aj@erisian.com.au>
Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::136])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85D01C002D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 11 Jul 2022 23:57:41 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D1FC606C6
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 11 Jul 2022 23:57:41 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org 4D1FC606C6
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.415
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.415 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FAKE_REPLY_C=1.486, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001,
SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 S_87_zMKOvUe
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 11 Jul 2022 23:57:40 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org 2ACA66068D
Received: from azure.erisian.com.au (azure.erisian.com.au [172.104.61.193])
by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2ACA66068D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 11 Jul 2022 23:57:40 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from aj@azure.erisian.com.au (helo=sapphire.erisian.com.au)
by azure.erisian.com.au with esmtpsa (Exim 4.92 #3 (Debian))
id 1oB3HT-0000Rs-Nc; Tue, 12 Jul 2022 09:57:37 +1000
Received: by sapphire.erisian.com.au (sSMTP sendmail emulation);
Tue, 12 Jul 2022 09:57:31 +1000
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)
X-Spam-Score-int: -3
X-Spam-Bar: /
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, 11 Jul 2022 23:57:41 -0000
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
|
