Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9EAFC002D for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2022 20:11:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9271F400E4 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2022 20:11:39 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org 9271F400E4 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=Ss5YJXN/ X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.201 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, 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 8GH-0TZIRtfN for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2022 20:11:38 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: delayed 00:10:04 by SQLgrey-1.8.0 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org 5C59840012 Received: from smtpo92.poczta.onet.pl (smtpo92.poczta.onet.pl [213.180.149.145]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C59840012 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2022 20:11:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pmq5v.m5r2.onet (pmq5v.m5r2.onet [10.174.35.25]) by smtp.poczta.onet.pl (Onet) with ESMTP id 4Lsnq96pTYzlgNxK; Tue, 26 Jul 2022 22:01:25 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=op.pl; s=2011; t=1658865686; bh=B8dCTvZMjTphJK+JrOeWSXKPZtg8/9Mr4YHT8skACdQ=; h=From:To:Date:Subject:From; b=Ss5YJXN/SlTAwMJ4F7/mjHMjA7YGUodpi+XQgbhEK/p/Y6zKllTffZbmKDmw3HWR4 vjSxGK/IrFxtyVJZhUfz+IeNndMhHJA2KTHzraaPlRwD4RPv+1U/mNIgDkyEij93G/ WSwEZ/y000BEBSCoh50S0LS7sfSVlgHucvkZ08EE= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Received: from [89.64.64.99] by pmq5v.m5r2.onet via HTTP id ; Tue, 26 Jul 2022 22:01:25 +0200 From: jk_14@op.pl X-Priority: 3 To: Erik Aronesty , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2022 22:01:25 +0200 Message-Id: <165134018-3e03339264bd562dac266aa835d623df@pmq5v.m5r2.onet> X-Mailer: onet.poczta X-Onet-PMQ: ;89.64.64.99;PL;2 X-ONET_PL-MDA-SEGREGATION: 0 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 27 Jul 2022 11:17:43 +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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2022 20:11:39 -0000 Let's assume fees don't compensate low block reward. And for example every 10 BTC holding needs to be secured by one Antminer S1= 9 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 201= 3) Pretty sure in real world it won't work. And there is a large payoff for be= trayal, or more precise: People will think there is tiny punishment for betrayal. Even Bitcoin can't beat a human nature. Regards Jaroslaw W dniu 2022-07-26 19:06:12 u=C5=BCytkownik Erik Aronesty nap= isa=C5=82: > I'm pretty sure we will have a textbook case of Prisoner's Dilemma here. no, there is no large payoff for betrayal