MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <mailman.9.1654344003.14400.bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
 <CAHTn92zw_MaSKWiZGhGFqFYXJxv6kQ+7=XCHbRLim1jhtEsVVQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJowKgJ8GP4Ykzn5dMHZ7wsE04YmpOLgTpdc9tgfVng0qB0Jjg@mail.gmail.com>
 <YqVfTU0M7XN8+Ybu@petertodd.org>
 <Pwr9EFLSv2rU7nXRzqFuw2LPxpFo22g_qYy4reQzpMuSlgRzTG536uLjZCc9sI43olReGMA7BFgjnxJGKtZNtxU7qRy_-YYOnz6TeMy4h8Q=@protonmail.com>
 <Yq77CnxOhr615ip8@petertodd.org>
 <CAAxiura7-TTUOg=vuH8q+orX+LVED74f+NvaYqVve3j--CjTMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJowKgL=nVwnUrpSKmnsTxOfk3DEEZL7awG=HypyCXSR3XCLxg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJowKgL=nVwnUrpSKmnsTxOfk3DEEZL7awG=HypyCXSR3XCLxg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Keagan McClelland <keagan.mcclelland@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2022 13:00:07 -0600
Message-ID: <CALeFGL0CQC4_swZTt-=sbe=ZiCmRthZghGDtrWFx5bQCBeOJcg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com>, 
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000df2cbe05e1f9d4c8"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable
Precedence: list

--000000000000df2cbe05e1f9d4c8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

> The PoW security of Bitcoin benefits all Bitcoin users, proportional to
the
value of BTC they hold; if Bitcoin blocks aren't reliably created the value
of
*all* BTC goes down. It doesn't make sense for the entire cost of that
security
to be paid for on a per-tx basis. And there's a high chance paying for it
on a
per-tx basis won't work anyway due to lack of consistent demand.

FWIW I prefer the demurrage route. Having something with finite supply as a
means of measuring economic activity is unprecedented and I believe deeply
important. I'm sympathetic to the argument that the security of the chain
should not be solely the responsibility of transactors. We realize the
value of money on receipt, hold *and* spend and it would be appropriate for
there to be a balance of fees to that effect. While inflation may be
simpler to implement (just chop off the last few halvings), I think it
would be superior (on the assumption that such a hodl tax was necessary) to
keep the supply fixed and have people's utxo balances decay, at least at
the level of the UX.

But also none of this should be reasons we don't improve Bitcoin's value
(and therefore demand)

Keagan

On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 2:42 AM Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Jun 19, 2022 at 2:04 PM Manuel Costa via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>>  if we start seeing issues with block rewards being too low to maintain
>> acceptable security, we're going to have multiple solutions being
>> implemented for it, and definitely a hard fork to indefinitely maintain
>> some degree of block subsidy
>>
>
> if we failed to first try increasing block demand with advanced
> transaction support, it would seem like we were just throwing money and
> growth away to support one narrative (simplicty of function), while
> destroying another (finite supply)
>
> if stuff like covenant support and mweb gets us higher fees, with stuff
> like on-chain mixing protocols, vaults, and higher utility, it might be
> more than enough to sustain bitcoin on fees alone forever
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

--000000000000df2cbe05e1f9d4c8
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">&gt; The PoW security of Bitcoin benefits all Bitcoin user=
s, proportional to the<br>value of BTC they hold; if Bitcoin blocks aren=
9;t reliably created the value of<br>*all* BTC goes down. It doesn&#39;t ma=
ke sense for the entire cost of that security<br>to be paid for on a per-tx=
 basis. And there&#39;s a high chance paying for it on a<br>per-tx basis wo=
n&#39;t work anyway due to lack of consistent demand.<div><br></div><div>FW=
IW I prefer the demurrage route. Having something with finite supply as a m=
eans of measuring economic activity is unprecedented and I believe deeply i=
mportant. I&#39;m sympathetic to the argument that the security of the chai=
n should not be solely the responsibility of transactors. We realize the va=
lue of money on receipt, hold *and* spend and it would be appropriate for t=
here to be a balance of fees to that effect. While inflation may be simpler=
 to implement (just chop off the last few halvings), I think it would be su=
perior (on the assumption that such a hodl tax was necessary) to keep the s=
upply fixed and have people&#39;s utxo balances decay, at least at the leve=
l of the UX.</div><div><br></div><div>But also none of this should be reaso=
ns we don&#39;t improve Bitcoin&#39;s value (and therefore demand)</div><di=
v><br></div><div>Keagan</div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=
=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 2:42 AM Erik Aronesty=
 via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.or=
g">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquot=
e class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px s=
olid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><=
br></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_att=
r">On Sun, Jun 19, 2022 at 2:04 PM Manuel Costa via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin=
-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D=
"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(2=
04,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>=C2=A0if we start seein=
g issues with block rewards being too low to maintain acceptable security, =
we&#39;re going to have multiple solutions being implemented for it, and de=
finitely a hard fork to indefinitely maintain some degree of block subsidy<=
/div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>if we failed to first try incre=
asing block demand with advanced transaction support, it would seem like we=
 were just throwing money and growth away to support one narrative (simplic=
ty=C2=A0of function), while destroying another (finite supply)=C2=A0</div><=
div><br></div><div>if stuff like covenant support and mweb gets us higher f=
ees, with=C2=A0stuff like on-chain mixing protocols, vaults, and higher uti=
lity, it might be more than enough to sustain bitcoin on fees alone forever=
</div><div>=C2=A0</div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div>

--000000000000df2cbe05e1f9d4c8--