Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 799F8C002D for ; Sun, 3 Jul 2022 09:44:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22E3782F84 for ; Sun, 3 Jul 2022 09:44:05 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 22E3782F84 Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=petertodd.org header.i=@petertodd.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=fm3 header.b=if7k6i+5; dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=fm2 header.b=cG5wLMDI X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.802 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.802 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ji57wEAQZlEJ for ; Sun, 3 Jul 2022 09:44:04 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org B0DF182F80 Received: from wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.24]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0DF182F80 for ; Sun, 3 Jul 2022 09:44:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAA1B32002F9; Sun, 3 Jul 2022 05:43:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 03 Jul 2022 05:43:58 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=petertodd.org; h=cc:cc:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:sender :subject:subject:to:to; s=fm3; t=1656841437; x=1656927837; bh=Rm l3TYTawSRie0Hhyg/Vmy6d0/lLo1WoRyVSq7d9Mag=; b=if7k6i+5MMMjoawY5x W2iVpOjfGYzLfJGJBlWZEZu6qRrKMckkvGLNfbi7MDgzZfFiRNaSvgVxt3Drn1Kq /8DKXDAKIPUxE8R/TvcSQIgGW2Tf0QRyDIpRUHcvVCo68dHETlJJqiShtvmpzD/3 71qcE2VDScJnG7tQNMchIe1Ob79811MUywhVabdR4qI+VTOCKXL7t67Ml3/FfsBD vFRyQU9cxpFsO28wVO9uPtZbOs9gpOtD4Bip5eB23AVJlKGgfLQxjhJxTCY7DY/I FmhCYdA51AkvalS4AmqirmbfUXpW1jZYeb5xUCDsHLkGAvslw43wszgehVdugKtC 8wCg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:date:date:feedback-id :feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id :mime-version:references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to :x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm2; t=1656841437; x=1656927837; bh=Rml3TYTawSRie0Hhyg/Vmy6d0/lL o1WoRyVSq7d9Mag=; b=cG5wLMDInwxkbMi70t4hOw/lKSOwysuiymh/jqVHFnJY J1csnSFIN+bKSsNzO7kJ/p7YFKm0af671V/cA/Cm+FXAg3cayNp82htOMMfD11bq B2IKHU7MW3rogCwpoHxm6oPcIW87rz/nnQT3KqigHnWi12x05I3Zcb4tFnTG4TbY mjdWogw+7w8qB2X+tPTeISKhgNCNtyfKL4pddmdxmYZl+/nVOL7ioZOLQwrDtAXr 4WOqaqp3kzsemDdQCdgp7llzX66fB8MbxqQAg/Yt+cJI0nBsHbLzbnZ0uLetCAZ6 QaZ7RtFMqL6tO1pUL5waULfnXOI9L+TClCJ+okWplA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvfedrudehjedgvdduucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepfffhvfevuffkfhggtggujgesghdtreertddtvdenucfhrhhomheprfgvthgv rhcuvfhougguuceophgvthgvsehpvghtvghrthhouggurdhorhhgqeenucggtffrrghtth gvrhhnpeelvdellefftddukeduffejgfefjeeuheeileeftdfgteduteeggeevueethfej tdenucffohhmrghinhepphgvthgvrhhtohguugdrohhrghenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiii gvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehushgvrhesphgvthgvrhhtohguugdr ohhrgh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i525146e8:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Sun, 3 Jul 2022 05:43:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9ADE05F83D; Sun, 3 Jul 2022 05:43:53 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2022 05:43:53 -0400 From: Peter Todd To: Kate Salazar , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ve+aes3NTOz6RPy9" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Cc: Billy Tetrud Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2022 09:44:05 -0000 --ve+aes3NTOz6RPy9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 12:44:11PM +0200, Kate Salazar via bitcoin-dev wrot= e: > > On an idealistic level, I agree with Keagan that it would make sense to > > have "a balance of fees to that effect". I think doing that would be > > technically/economically optimal. However, I think there is an enormous > > benefit to having a cultural aversion to monetary inflation and the > > consequences of convincing the bitcoin community that inflation is ok c= ould > > have unintended negative consequences (not to mention how difficult > > convincing the community would be in the first place). There's also the > > economic distortion that inflation causes that has a negative effect wh= ich > > should also be considered. The idea of decaying utxo value is interesti= ng > > to consider, but it would not solve the economic distortion that > > monetary inflation causes, because that distortion is a result of monet= ary > > devaluation (which decaying utxos would be a form of). Then again, mayb= e in > > this case the distortion of inflation would actually be a correction - > > correcting for the externality of benefit received by holders. I'm > > stream-of-consciousnessing a bit, but anyways, I suspect its not worth = the > > trouble to perfect the distribution of bitcoin blockchain security cost= s to > > include holders. Tho, if I were to go back in time and influence how > > bitcoin was designed, I might advocate for it. > > >=20 > Pool operators are free to request larger fees from older utxos, or from > all utxos, or from newer utxos, at their judgement, looking at the > blockspace demand census and at what the other pool operators are doing. > This is not consensus, it's policy. It's not a technology problem, it's > solved above in the social layer. If pool operators can easily collude like you are proposing, we have a seri= ous problem with pool centralization. What you would actually expect in a healthy Bitcoin ecosystem is for some p= ool operators to defect, and them winding up mining those transactions for market-based fees, eventually forcing the pool operators who are trying to charge a discriminatory premium to give up. --=20 https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org --ve+aes3NTOz6RPy9 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEE0RcYcKRzsEwFZ3N5Lly11TVRLzcFAmLBZNcACgkQLly11TVR LzeSPA/+OM8Mcu9gpRw5AlgsOoOhJiEoKUOk5DV4RTgfDacx9YvHUWdkaJ77tTdb lEXfMyhVbBMJEqlyC/fOvSqIyDdWHPsU48T3BQJZFjdGY4cX88ec3xKPD1kRpYz3 MMNTas5/4/qjQ1Xgpx9XGLR+GZoxDp+MQWn+YYbFJX7NFP1RcKADwidS2zrYeOOP M7EQvK6x27f8Q+hL/zfkslAM/1GZJBFSAbCOnjcGRP7IuNKbP9CZ3+q6pcebXkzZ EkYaGxtQejcVB+uHAgch6faHeeUJXL3BULM+vdXEYGK9ylPc4MTWpRmAsrJAhn4Q nMRU0j4OeN6qas0Sm+aIfyDxczG3gje0dCn7KVCkvzJS9VTob5Fm5e51WkaMDQ0L kiyzQuxY5vj/RhLBIOBmUPMTdNBWe6jx79A8UP5wIa98lUVOsgleudiNX1ouJemF gyypplyx7keyc4ln/cwDA+9kIE8nBggBkqGWUajIrx0dlY7vzouBQm1dCzYZHxoF 1F4go2VDoY1hYsixqkWJ+7aJjjA/od9ESUSSpljD/UDpfgqLaze43A0ogU8+gekp WaigNyJSSTG9Eh6c8Qz5Lf5dT+uHLojlf9dAyhJyP4QLINU69I4LKHt2GVyieuGO 5UKSsuTxl4C7apWL7w/jhxxIyMOM01rIlAb702amiolZMqLxe8s= =OYQ0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ve+aes3NTOz6RPy9--