path: root/8a/401cd48e637eefc6f264abffa8aa8a5699ba33

Return-Path: <keagan.mcclelland@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA7C0C002D
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue, 21 Jun 2022 19:00:21 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6CB3419FD
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue, 21 Jun 2022 19:00:21 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org B6CB3419FD
Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org;
 dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com
 header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20210112 header.b=ja3IpFwN
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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_HELO_NONE=0.001,
 SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 zG73RMywLmtO
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue, 21 Jun 2022 19:00:20 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 02438419DC
Received: from mail-wr1-x42f.google.com (mail-wr1-x42f.google.com
 [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42f])
 by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 02438419DC
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue, 21 Jun 2022 19:00:19 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-wr1-x42f.google.com with SMTP id c21so20237778wrb.1
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue, 21 Jun 2022 12:00:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112;
 h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to
 :cc; bh=GDEyWBtraMxaKj+JGGERkqqOgdZZM5U7SnLAWbcQ3iY=;
 b=ja3IpFwNowmFf+RUGzCKVy8lMNBwdJgL3Q5w6dWWfQFVBpFpo8zwLmZt9Oe639kDeC
 oV5U9ZTAfX7hhVXdGNbLfzbN4s+wsBY6MrA/Dv8+64YrxXuGDjYX1sxxGTqz71niR6eS
 pK/LBeFadBWUHVxZCaVSpha9EUX6tdy4lIAlZynlp9p0eFwa94xniKZgI5bDHcQIfbA3
 3v7cU1FMMlO6ZM1wZQMLPUfPwV1/1ecXiUOSBnzB9Ql8+FhY5yW31YtDqIUpF5vCKnzQ
 5qs+kdZnW+uLbT620ep+ZhM4hbuhFfdnGM9xQlkJgbmn1AXMHeBtCNZOKwhlteL8Pf0x
 YP1w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20210112;
 h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
 :message-id:subject:to:cc;
 bh=GDEyWBtraMxaKj+JGGERkqqOgdZZM5U7SnLAWbcQ3iY=;
 b=REVH7MbbQMWHc9jhNdTpXrdjhPnfqLUEqZr71pTnonQPGx77ZHpFTBtt9X0q5w3Jel
 wEJqak7nUfVmb3P6eVR9pgL0x7sajiyMvDPuuVBNAae4WIFy6VThGIxraltZKIvqzrBa
 UDR1Tj1OkRiSLkCovCB7zrRNEVMYizei7H9QF7KJaCqvWICfFvdrpz7ZQTroOmTT/4Qx
 iNs38m6VqkfmKrd4nd8gmHSf4EvudabgpYs7VTzcnltterUP484urDRijYbbRHJr3Z9M
 tiH6ox8Z36VStQfS7vnpEoWzCyNmoZ9Q4QqJ8+MUPnPMWSx1xMs2qUQzkYoQxD7sr1t3
 MIOw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora9key4nZsjXb6k4lEEKCw2NKlgzv+fPtEFoNo0RwuoBvWZ6QZ7C
 FfQpus2PCY3JLcszHoTbPYG/8xcw3qeYZfYn6KY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1txi8n2g4Gj23Goxd+Px2jG31ydxuNOgP8bBHAdFNiS9h3XhO54iZd3xIF+o3Z7CiBKfV6a3zhKafUu9vYGU1I=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:1287:b0:21b:8f56:43cb with SMTP id
 f7-20020a056000128700b0021b8f5643cbmr11595121wrx.625.1655838018053; Tue, 21
 Jun 2022 12:00:18 -0700 (PDT)
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"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 21 Jun 2022 19:28:40 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable
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: Tue, 21 Jun 2022 19:00:22 -0000

--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&#3=
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--