Return-Path: Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89548C0001 for ; Sun, 23 May 2021 01:01:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FB274041A for ; Sun, 23 May 2021 01:01:02 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PlGdo1cUw-xa for ; Sun, 23 May 2021 01:00:56 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-pj1-x1034.google.com (mail-pj1-x1034.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1034]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3CF940417 for ; Sun, 23 May 2021 01:00:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pj1-x1034.google.com with SMTP id ne24-20020a17090b3758b029015f2dafecb0so7972305pjb.4 for ; Sat, 22 May 2021 18:00:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=pBhf4uSUboaXXrvBd/mRSRbQfSKMNIeoSjv1Yg2xl7E=; b=qsnTOj37Qv5EwK/2RN4io7JqThnWnsTYbpfT8y/loo73iS7V1zyJuJUlmw3GjvH6xw wLiWlMEWZVSqq4ja28JG6NNCgyTKvr1PrZiutymi/tGmAy2Rn8gphYHN7jIGo32gulcJ XKzmV3chLGyRroLB/nG+yhcJ3kwwTsxrMwUpXGzEoXfpG+mrBeIoanK7P0memD8+pHMI 8NKb+7O6dNbe2xJotJDKYWlFu1rLK5UC505GaEOoTDQ2Esc+TGQemZ2DShs5KCf0Uo+i epiKja/6EkfPrnaXDGIW9h7jqaMjnD8C3HiPV+wT98OZ/12oeOtPSXAw0BLjV/kZFIi0 A9bQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=pBhf4uSUboaXXrvBd/mRSRbQfSKMNIeoSjv1Yg2xl7E=; b=Dnsb2aunUYcTcANrqF3kjyphcDCyQ7pALStb0bJJDYvqO7IAyIe0POn+/LdX17LPUH Em/ZkDbgjhQf0V0S9S5dtnfufr8M/Nlbm7GTM3q+xNnoe8LvLjJYDYCvSXubrzQJSrb0 ePuNXyN7rEOeRLBnP10kLSAicYtztvs1EwtUaIijKncAeKx9vVftpklopebDE+0a7nZm vjlYkdh4vjPkNOUqpddz+Ax9JUp47muv5kqcpIiUeLP6NiWY+HYWU9TGCrm1ZY85IkOD 0wIQaxfO1XWnkCJS+MBEDOWquUnElr6fmfBuMJpqqFQR97rb972CGveyteG4wTSZuD7E pfBg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531pAT8mioa9VwCZVnfPYKLiJHji9Rn7hzeXanI4mhKjNUpaDtgs Mja8MxcGabQ/Xr8eLdwmNTLY0n5KKLS+z5bm/66cM+2zjxVrLg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy8OtQH7F6rA9gAehCr9ZF0YOMdY3eCh9Q9YjsKgof95eP1z5MfDsavb+iMl99DwW+Ej8YbCA/AT8NJMk7KQH8= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:514e:: with SMTP id k14mr17807413pjm.72.1621731655749; Sat, 22 May 2021 18:00:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: James Lu Date: Sat, 22 May 2021 21:00:19 -0400 Message-ID: To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004315ef05c2f4d3d3" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 23 May 2021 08:49:06 +0000 Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Reducing block reward via soft fork 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, 23 May 2021 01:01:02 -0000 --0000000000004315ef05c2f4d3d3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Background === Reducing the block reward reduces the incentive to mine. It reduces the maximum energy price at which mining is profitable, reducing the energy use. Bitcoins have value because they are accepted by full node users, from individual node operators, to exchanges and custodians like Coinbase. Anything else and the Bitcoins don't exist and are worthless. Like all currencies, Bitcoin has value because others recognize that they have value. Idea === Reduce the block reward by adding fewer coins to the UTXO set per block. This should be done gradually Consensus layer === This is a soft fork, because it tightens the Some Possible Weaknesses === - It will cost less than a nation-state of energy to reverse recent Bitcoin transactions. - Some miners may protest and lobby exchanges. - By pushing mining towards the cheapest energy sources, centralization increases towards Chinese miners. - The Bitcoin network may split if consensus is not built before flag day. However, given the current political headwinds and widespread public discussion around Bitcoin's energy use, it may be socially possible to ask individual users and major exchanges to install a version of Bitcoin with a reduced block reward. Alternatives === Instead of outright rejecting transactions (and the blocks that contain them) that attempt to spend increased block rewards, treat them as no-ops. --0000000000004315ef05c2f4d3d3 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Background
=3D=3D=3D
R= educing the block reward reduces the incentive to mine. It reduces the maxi= mum energy price at which mining is profitable, reducing the energy use.

Bitcoins have value because they are accepted by full node users, from = individual node operators, to exchanges and custodians like Coinbase. Anyth= ing else and the Bitcoins don't exist and are worthless. Like all curre= ncies, Bitcoin has value because others recognize that they have value.

Idea
=3D=3D=3D
Reduce the block = reward by adding fewer coins to the UTXO set per block. This should be done= gradually

Consensus layer
=3D=3D=3D
This is a soft fork, beca= use it tightens the=C2=A0

<= div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif= ;font-size:small;color:#000000">Some Possible Weaknesses
=3D=3D=3D
- It wi= ll cost less than a nation-state of energy to reverse recent Bitcoin transa= ctions.
- Some miners may protest and= lobby exchanges.
- By pushing mi= ning towards the cheapest energy sources, centralization increases towards = Chinese miners.
- The Bitcoin network= may split if consensus is not built before flag day.

However, given = the current political headwinds and widespread public discussion around Bitcoin's energy use, it may be socially possible to ask individual users and majo= r exchanges to install a version of Bitcoin with a reduced block reward.

Alternatives
=3D=3D=3D=
Instead of outright rejecting transactions (and the b= locks that contain them) that attempt to spend increased block rewards, tre= at them as no-ops.
--0000000000004315ef05c2f4d3d3--