Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="===============7634197064950630424=="
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: vjudeu@gazeta.pl
To: JK <jk_14@op.pl>,
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
 Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com>,
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2023 09:58:44 +0100
Message-Id: <194638433-36890bea95b2ebab3a168daf3c806e8f@pmq7v.m5r2.onet>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] ossification and misaligned incentive concerns
Precedence: list

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--===============7634197064950630424==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

> Imagine a system that tries to maintain a constant level of difficulty an=
d reacts flexibly to changes in difficulty, by modulating the block reward =
level accordingly (using negative feedback).
=C2=A0
This is exactly what I did, when experimenting with LN-based mining. CPU po=
wer was too low to get a full block reward out of that. But getting single =
millisatoshis from a channel partner? This is possible, and I started desig=
ning my model from that assumption. Also, because channel partner usually d=
on't want to explicitly pay, I created it in a form of "LN transaction fee =
discount". Which means, a CPU miner just received cheaper LN transactions t=
hrough the channel partner, instead of getting paid explicitly. Which also =
caused better network connectivity, because then you have an upper bound fo=
r your mining (it won't be cheaper LN transaction than for free). Which mea=
ns, if you mine so many shares, that you have free LN transactions, then yo=
u have to sell them, or open another channel, and then instead of having "o=
ne channel with free transactions", you have many.
=C2=A0
> The free market is more important than finite supply.
=C2=A0
I would say, the backward compatibility is more important than increased (n=
o matter if still constant or not) supply. Which means, you can "increase" =
the supply, just by introducing millisatoshis on-chain. Or add any "tail su=
pply", or anything like that, what was discussed in the past. The only thin=
g that matters is: can you make it compatible with the current system? Hard=
-fork will be instantly rejected, without any discussion. Soft-fork will be=
 stopped at best, exactly in the same way, how other soft-fork proposals we=
re stopped, when achieving consensus was hard, and the topic was controvers=
ial. So, what is left? Of course no-forks and second layers. This is the on=
ly way, that is wide-open today, and which requires no support from the com=
munity. And that's why Ordinals are so strong: because they are a no-fork. =
Better or worse designed, it doesn't matter, but still a no-fork. Which mea=
ns, they exist in the wild, no matter if you like them or not.
--===============7634197064950630424==
Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div>&gt; Imagine a system that tries to maintain a constant level of diffi=
culty and reacts flexibly to changes in difficulty, by modulating the block=
 reward level accordingly (using negative feedback).</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>This is exactly what I did, when experimenting with LN-based mining. C=
PU power was too low to get a full block reward out of that. But getting si=
ngle millisatoshis from a channel partner? This is possible, and I started =
designing my model from that assumption. Also, because channel partner usua=
lly don't want to explicitly pay, I created it in a form of "LN transaction=
 fee discount". Which means, a CPU miner just received cheaper LN transacti=
ons through the channel partner, instead of getting paid explicitly. Which =
also caused better network connectivity, because then you have an upper bou=
nd for your mining (it won't be cheaper LN transaction than for free). Whic=
h means, if you mine so many shares, that you have free LN transactions, th=
en you have to sell them, or open another channel, and then instead of havi=
ng "one channel with free transactions", you have many.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>&gt; The free market is more important than finite supply.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>I would say, the backward compatibility is more important than increas=
ed (no matter if still constant or not) supply. Which means, you can "incre=
ase" the supply, just by introducing millisatoshis on-chain. Or add any "ta=
il supply", or anything like that, what was discussed in the past. The only=
 thing that matters is: can you make it compatible with the current system?=
 Hard-fork will be instantly rejected, without any discussion. Soft-fork wi=
ll be stopped at best, exactly in the same way, how other soft-fork proposa=
ls were stopped, when achieving consensus was hard, and the topic was contr=
oversial. So, what is left? Of course no-forks and second layers. This is t=
he only way, that is wide-open today, and which requires no support from th=
e community. And that's why Ordinals are so strong: because they are a no-f=
ork. Better or worse designed, it doesn't matter, but still a no-fork. Whic=
h means, they exist in the wild, no matter if you like them or not.</div>

--===============7634197064950630424==--