Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 142BCC002D for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2022 09:44:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D47B040222 for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2022 09:44:12 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org D47B040222 Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20210112 header.b=o3Dh5vnA X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 ggmKl5QBbKuh for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2022 09:44:12 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org BC0A74017E Received: from mail-lf1-x131.google.com (mail-lf1-x131.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::131]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC0A74017E for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2022 09:44:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf1-x131.google.com with SMTP id a9so18146593lfk.11 for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2022 02:44:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=Lci528G1hm+IJKqq+KBJgfV3goqRYR46SAyGQdwMOd0=; b=o3Dh5vnA/4JqED1y4vYuKIijs0rr9MAF+KE+8+jXyeXJ6eF8u0LMIEtrIEeUFPFUmT OGbkCLAry1NUqJYbpctZsTH6qRUZWN/afasaAf2p5Agt2fjVP4Qa3wZgGDIrDXkwfFds IoCBCCCyWoDYJlpX+Xnv1rV6d1PXEprGd+TZ4elLZ4ZGElEMWSdkD+mG4Ew6TgPNcfyx 3uSsSKEElVJ4BzqiVmpJVDwMqSjzTZ9KBOHMVQ2KyGsvHaFqlPEWhVXA9VCQU0ytgU6Z e1XXvdDJIrBn7PG/J+odMvhPhKPHBK3W8J8Xt0HNrK9TlhkNZ/PYm6lY3hlLKYjCRfo+ uRJQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=Lci528G1hm+IJKqq+KBJgfV3goqRYR46SAyGQdwMOd0=; b=rO7o7hsgGRHTJPVgc6PHCcoQnDBYwm5Q57bO+1B+sX6TFyhUG3pVO5br7GoYTJ4NPz YxH+ZVg7+G/alR5XZ0JFUrB56zuPqghg7aYYs4PbF/cuskf+1IeHI0+48WZK7QlYLJNm P+qLDUn+YHkImp88mEiSf0jsOXtnFz/WPWrXCIbLe6o0YYfKPXMpyW8ojvu+/wmUwwdR TEeKsfKN0yDVRrQ/ThBPsvym4ogOB0ym7dyjVVebYjoMMCJ3w7HsCjGJRG3lqINZOsRm 90SEy0S9ORExssEFq13+cuxqTHUCNDne17vgz6scAjueFDjgdwfd5zhxBRuqUvYTqXZP isng== X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora+K+GNPb5yTLVXbQnsuzUx5/pEpypFC5rA3AdhaM+lCMGyf0pgQ S7+JS1UqzJXkF1ERe8XfJF0+1FwxNIyegtDySxStqRchfg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1u+R2xGXaMAeWxe3DGK2yOWhop/zl9Z9B+4ijnP0CAj4Tkb9nyUxwayXsdysVNgGc3zE7MDZJwD8PTGNjliQqQ= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:151e:b0:481:348b:100a with SMTP id bq30-20020a056512151e00b00481348b100amr1427088lfb.253.1657705449515; Wed, 13 Jul 2022 02:44:09 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: John Tromp Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2022 11:43:57 +0200 Message-ID: To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 13 Jul 2022 10:08:24 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Security problems with relying on transaction fees for security 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: Wed, 13 Jul 2022 09:44:13 -0000 > The emission curve lasts over 100 years because Bitcoin success state requires it to be entrenched globally. It effectively doesn't. The last 100 years from 2040-2140 only emits a pittance of about 0.4 of all bitcoin. What matters for proper distribution is the shape of the emission curve. If you emit 99% in the first year and 1% in the next 100 years, your emission "lasts" over 100 years, and you achieve a super low supply inflation rate immediately after 1 year, but it's obviously a terrible form of distribution. This is easy to quantify as the expected time of emission which would be 0.99 * 0.5yr + 0.01* 51yr = 2 years. Bitcoin is not much better in that the expected time of emission of an bitcoin satisfies x = 0.5*2yr + 0.5*(4+x) and thus equals 6 years. Monero appears much better since its tail emission yields an infinite expected time of emission, but if we avoid infinities by looking at just the soft total emission [1], which is all that is emitted before a 1% yearly inflation, then Monero is seen to actually be a lot worse than Bitcoin, due to emitting over 40% in its first year and halving the reward much faster. Ethereum is much worse still with its huge premine and PoS coins like Algorand are scraping the bottom with their expected emission time of 0. There's only one coin whose expected (soft) emission time is larger than bitcoin's, and it's about an order of magnitude larger, at 50 years. [1] https://john-tromp.medium.com/a-case-for-using-soft-total-supply-1169a188d153