Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29EF2C002D for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2022 15:50:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF4884119D for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2022 15:50:05 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org DF4884119D 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=lgOuU9sM X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.843 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.843 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NUMERIC_HTTP_ADDR=1.242, 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 pv1O7PF1ka4y for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2022 15:50:05 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: delayed 00:05:01 by SQLgrey-1.8.0 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org 5889740158 Received: from smtpo53.poczta.onet.pl (smtpo53.poczta.onet.pl [213.180.142.184]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5889740158 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2022 15:50:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pmq7v.m5r2.onet (pmq7v.m5r2.onet [10.174.35.192]) by smtp.poczta.onet.pl (Onet) with ESMTP id 4Lsh7C3FrFzmK9 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2022 17:44:55 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=op.pl; s=2011; t=1658850295; bh=yh+lpV5eq2mUlzdfmwgkGBsuxrCvTvFKDgsGoWIeN5w=; h=From:To:In-Reply-To:Date:Subject:From; b=lgOuU9sM0RbKvgBj4qYs2vGZT1/dGht8ZQOWDJazR9JPIAYd7si2IMRyArVch/jII EAUM5yOIumXsR9xJSsyBaMjLOgf24jUOV/kKypeEdsKq1D+SlmLdI9PvZa9H33Ao52 2cZSP/k+aX8+t6mqA98qIH+cnnI7iNrRqTiohBjM= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="===============1595044933031641473==" MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: from [89.64.64.99] by pmq7v.m5r2.onet via HTTP id ; Tue, 26 Jul 2022 17:44:55 +0200 From: jk_14@op.pl X-Priority: 3 To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2022 17:44:55 +0200 Message-Id: <164899369-e86a243515589da95e0ee1512644068d@pmq7v.m5r2.onet> X-Mailer: onet.poczta X-Onet-PMQ: ;89.64.64.99;PL;1 X-ONET_PL-MDA-SEGREGATION: 0 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 26 Jul 2022 16:51:12 +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 15:50:06 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============1595044933031641473== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable "large holders who perform zero transactions will still mine in order to pr= eserve the value of the network" let me slightly modify the sentence below: "The Prisoner's Dilemma is a standard example of a game analyzed in game th= eory that shows why completely rational large holders might not cooperate, = even if it appears that it is in their best interests to do so." I'm pretty sure we will have a textbook case of Prisoner's Dilemma here. Regards Jaroslaw W dniu 2022-07-26 10:20:38 u=C5=BCytkownik Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev napisa=C5=82: even with zero block reward and minimal fees, large holders who perform zer= o transactions will still mine in order to preserve the value of the network =C2=A0 this is not "mining your own tx", it is unrelated =C2=A0 this is "mining at a small loss to preserve your stake" =C2=A0 not only don't we need issuance or fees, but also the censorship resistance= is not meaningfully improved with issuance=C2=A0 =C2=A0 On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 3:14 PM Erik Aronesty wrote: subsidy to directly tie miner revenue to the total value of Bitcoin makes it not exactly how we want to incentivise a service that keeps =C2=A0 again, this is meaningless.=C2=A0 =C2=A0if the fees aren't enough=C2=A0to k= eep=C2=A0 bitcoin secure for large transactions, then large holders are inc= entivised to mine =C2=A0 that's it. =C2=A0 it's not complicated --===============1595044933031641473== Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

"large holders who perform zero transactions will still mine in = order to preserve the value of the network"

let me slightly modi= fy the sentence below:

"The Prisoner's Dilemma is a standard exa= mple of a game analyzed in game theory that shows why completely rational l= arge holders might not cooperate, even if it appears that it is in their be= st interests to do so."

I'm pretty sure we will have a textbook = case of Prisoner's Dilemma here.

Regards
Jaroslaw


W dniu 2022-07-26 10:20:38 u=C5=BCytkownik Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-d= ev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> napisa=C5=82:
even with zero block reward and minimal fees, large holders who perfor= m zero transactions will still mine in order to preserve the value of the n= etwork
 
this is not "mining your own tx", it is unrelated
 
this is "mining at a small loss to preserve your stake"
 
not only don't we need issuance or fees, but also the censorship resis= tance is not meaningfully improved with issuance 
 

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 3:14 PM Erik = Aronesty <erik@q32.com> wrote:

subsidy to directly ti= e miner revenue to the total value of Bitcoin
makes it not exactly ho= w we want to incentivise a service that keeps

 
again, this is meaningless.   if the fees aren't enough = ;to keep  bitcoin secure for large transactions, then large holders ar= e incentivised to mine
 
that's it.
 
it's not complicated
--===============1595044933031641473==--