MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <Ysl4t9K8lfxRSsNM@petertodd.org>
 <165002130-e93e1ef73ec867025cbf3ea9b2d142bc@pmq2v.m5r2.onet>
In-Reply-To: <165002130-e93e1ef73ec867025cbf3ea9b2d142bc@pmq2v.m5r2.onet>
From: Larry Ruane <larryruane@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2022 12:25:41 -0600
Message-ID: <CAEpYn+egaW2YMjJfOSTcaquGNpLhYAqf4sBY83WUsynRwQE1cQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: vjudeu@gazeta.pl, 
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Surprisingly, Tail Emission Is Not Inflationary
Precedence: list

On Sun, Jul 10, 2022 at 3:05 AM vjudeu via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Not really, because people that run full nodes, just accepted Segwit
> and Taproot. They had no choice. And in case of zero satoshis, it could
> be the same: you would see zero if you look at raw bytes, but you will
> see non-zero values, if you use some upgraded client, that will support
> amount hiding, or other features.
>
> Segwit: old nodes see no new signatures, new nodes see all signatures
> Zero satoshis: old nodes see new zero amounts, new nodes see all amounts
>
> It is that simple.

I see what you mean, have the P2P messages depend on whether the peer
is running old code (doesn't know about tail emission) or new code
(does know about it).

I don't think this can work in this case. It worked for Segwit because
the P2P differences involved only signatures (which determine whether
the transaction is valid), not the *effect* of the transaction, that is,
how it changes the UTXO set. Consensus requires all nodes to always
agree on the UTXO set.

Larry Ruane