summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/63/d3483a310020c1177754023a59222349db0faf
blob: 61652eb075aad8e3750767b21b08bc8284881b5f (plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
Return-Path: <vjudeu@gazeta.pl>
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 021C7C002D
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Fri, 19 Aug 2022 05:34:36 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1194400D3
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Fri, 19 Aug 2022 05:34:35 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org D1194400D3
Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org;
 dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gazeta.pl header.i=@gazeta.pl
 header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=2013 header.b=Z4aFQYsw
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,
 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 yN3dShW-gqde
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Fri, 19 Aug 2022 05:34:34 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org 2AEE9400CE
Received: from smtpa14.poczta.onet.pl (smtpa14.poczta.onet.pl [213.180.142.14])
 by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2AEE9400CE
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Fri, 19 Aug 2022 05:34:33 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pmq6v.m5r2.onet (pmq6v.m5r2.onet [10.174.33.77])
 by smtp.poczta.onet.pl (Onet) with ESMTP id 4M89Rk12pPzlg9YH;
 Fri, 19 Aug 2022 07:34:25 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gazeta.pl; s=2013;
 t=1660887266; bh=/YCHE27JOhgY75SarinSdI0PaqVBGqDA94Qsyky/b9c=;
 h=From:To:Date:Subject:From;
 b=Z4aFQYswjfAjNLIyj4Ef3yN/1lUIvspIpDPrIyWVk7oK3Lw9Xtn/EznWIHuOdhzA4
 M9s3KTDu7C3dOP/tjwGXXZmKg+K8mQoIOs7cUl3rHPOkOBTbhQcfiU2298xoO5tn/C
 2cAqigtjihNjzxRMYBo3wxc8eyLqAnfrBZyfQjxU=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Received: from [31.61.165.201] by pmq6v.m5r2.onet via HTTP id ;
 Fri, 19 Aug 2022 07:34:25 +0200
From: vjudeu@gazeta.pl
X-Priority: 3
To: Billy Tetrud <billy.tetrud@gmail.com>,
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>, ,
 "jk_14@op.pl" <jk_14@op.pl>, ,
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2022 07:34:25 +0200
Message-Id: <73904836-123affd52a139f11587a4971b0df5f07@pmq6v.m5r2.onet>
X-Mailer: onet.poczta
X-Onet-PMQ: <vjudeu@gazeta.pl>;31.61.165.201;PL;4
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 19 Aug 2022 08:55:10 +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 <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, 
 <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, 
 <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2022 05:34:36 -0000

> If we actually wanted to solve the potential problem of not-enough-fees t=
o upkeep mining security, there are less temporary ways to solve that. For =
example, if fees end up not being able to support sufficient mining, we cou=
ld add emission based on a constant fraction of fees in the block. For exam=
ple, every block could emit new bitcoin amounting to 10% of the fees collec=
ted in that block. This would tie coinbase rewards to the real world (since=
 the fee market is tied to the real economy) and ensure higher block revenu=
e indefinitely - ie not just for another 50 years.

Miners can game this system by moving their own coins in 100% fees transact=
ions, just to produce more coins. You have one million BTC? No problem, jus=
t move them as fees, and you just created 100k BTC out of thin air, just be=
cause you are a wealthy miner. And even if that amount will be stolen, when=
 some other miner will reorg your block, then still, miners will keep creat=
ing coins by moving them as fees, and the strongest miner will get the whol=
e pot. And guess what: 100 blocks later you can reuse newly created 100k BT=
C to make another 10k BTC, so it will exponentially explode as (amountOfCoi=
ns*(1+0.1))^n function. And guess what: (1.1)^8 is 2.14358881. That means, =
after eight moves, you can double your coins, if you are a wealthy miner. A=
nd you can start with smaller amounts, to play it safe, but eventually, thi=
s system will degrade into "coin doubler after 800 blocks" or something sim=
ilar.


On 2022-08-18 18:45:43 user Billy Tetrud via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists=
.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
While constant tail emission does in fact converge to 0 inflation over time=
 (which bitcoin's halvings do as well mind you), tail emission does *not* s=
olve the potential problem of mining rewards, it only delays it. A tail emi=
ssion of 200,000 btc/year (~1% of the=C2=A0current supply) would be equival=
ent to halvings every ~50 years rather than every 4 years. Were we to imple=
ment this kind of thing right after the last non-" destructive" halving, it=
 would buy us 46 years of extra time. Nothing more, nothing less.


While its mildly interesting to know that tail emission converges to a stab=
le point, while no inflation implies monetary deflation at the rate of loss=
, this feels very likely to be an insignificant problem. I think 1% loss ra=
te per year is an absurdly high estimate these days, and the loss rate is l=
ikely to decrease as methods of storing bitcoin mature. Imagine bitcoin was=
 worth $1 trillion (not so hard, since it was not too long ago), then try i=
magining people losing $10 billion of bitcoin every year. Highly unlikely I=
MO. A rate of loss of 0.01%/year might be more realistic for a near-future =
mature bitcoin. That's not going to be enough to make a significant differe=
nce=C2=A0even over 100s of years.=C2=A0


If we actually wanted to solve the potential problem of not-enough-fees to =
upkeep mining security, there are less temporary ways to solve that. For ex=
ample, if fees end up not being able to support sufficient mining, we could=
 add emission based on a constant fraction of fees in the block. For exampl=
e, every block could emit new bitcoin amounting to 10% of the fees collecte=
d in that block. This would tie coinbase rewards to the real world (since t=
he fee market is tied to the real economy) and ensure higher block revenue =
indefinitely - ie not just for another=C2=A050 years.=C2=A0


But its also worth saying that blockchain security (which mining revenue co=
rrelates with) does *not* need to increase indefinitely. There is some amou=
nt of security (and therefore some amount of mining revenue) that is suffic=
ient, beyond which additional security is simply unnecessary, unwarranted, =
and wasteful (you wouldn't buy a $1000 safe to store $1000 of valuables). D=
o we, as the bitcoin community, have some good idea how much security we ne=
ed? Do we have some idea how costly a 51% attack must be where we can be co=
mfortable it will never happen? I'm curious to hear what people think about=
 that. Because without having some kind of estimates of what "enough securi=
ty" is, there's absolutely no way of evaluating whether or not its likely t=
hat bitcoin fees alone will be able to sustain enough security.=C2=A0






On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 9:31 AM Jaroslaw via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists=
.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

On one scale you puts the Trust to the large stakeholders (why we avoid ple=
nty of small stakeholders, btw),
and on the other side I put game theory and well defined Prisoner's Dilemma.

Again: large stakeholders WILL NOT incentivised to mine, they will have the=
 hundreds excuses why not to switch-on Antminers back.
That's how it simply works.=C2=A0 Bitcoin would fail miserably if Satoshi w=
as based his concept mainly on existence of idealists.

If we will observe lack of hashrate recovery four years after some halving =
and still unprepared like today
- means the trust in large stakeholders was a very costly mistake.


Superiority of Proof of Work against Proof of Stake has been discussed enou=
gh either
The overall conclusion with what I fully agree=C2=A0 is: swapping PoW to Po=
S - would be a degradation.
You can stop talking about degradation to proof of stake, but just: degrada=
tion.

Degradation of Bitcoin, due to human greed.

Now you mine and you have an INSTANT gratification.
Then you will mine and it will cost you real money, but simple switch - and=
 you have a DELAYED, maybe some day in the future, maybe only a tiny - puni=
shment.
And The Punishment Won't Be Tiny.


"If the pain after hitting the hand with a hammer would appear after a mont=
h - people would notoriously walk with swollen fingers"
100% (^2)

Regards
Jaroslaw



W dniu 2022-08-17 13:10:38 u=C5=BCytkownik Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com> nap=
isa=C5=82:

> you can stop talking about=C2=A0 the "security of the system" as meaningf=
ul
> this has been discussed enough
> if fees are not sufficient, clearance times increase and large stakeholde=
rs are incentivised to mine=C2=A0
> in the best case, fees are sufficient
> in the worst case, it degrades to proof of stake
> i'm sure you can see how that's fine either=C2=A0way



_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev