summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/a3/ecf95a828043b35e1814a982a30b3eea981cf7
blob: 195862297c17e9b24e4ac58a387aee33b70f8fa7 (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
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
Return-Path: <eric@voskuil.org>
Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7C8CC002D
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue, 21 Jun 2022 20:10:48 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC3DF61071
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue, 21 Jun 2022 20:10:48 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org BC3DF61071
Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org;
 dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=voskuil-org.20210112.gappssmtp.com
 header.i=@voskuil-org.20210112.gappssmtp.com header.a=rsa-sha256
 header.s=20210112 header.b=SF6tvDe6
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5
 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
 HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001,
 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001]
 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id nt2WsPmKaPEp
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue, 21 Jun 2022 20:10:47 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org 8545E606FF
Received: from mail-oa1-x2d.google.com (mail-oa1-x2d.google.com
 [IPv6:2001:4860:4864:20::2d])
 by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8545E606FF
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue, 21 Jun 2022 20:10:47 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-oa1-x2d.google.com with SMTP id
 586e51a60fabf-101d96fe0a5so10302039fac.2
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue, 21 Jun 2022 13:10:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=voskuil-org.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112;
 h=content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version:subject:date:message-id
 :references:cc:in-reply-to:to;
 bh=dQGGNNxxRXar55StV18MNqpkjoEpZ0SPqFIcwYamuuA=;
 b=SF6tvDe6yvjGtFO5DwOFrmNJyyLF5rLYPC4VtN+/4IhorI9tCglzbz0F/+AWWHf9T0
 h7Iff8TNqFVOIBWjWp7Wj/5sbtuCGDv1eBD6ipgiMmyY/D0xDcUPRTC3l2Kvef/qylDP
 jUxv5VJXpXDMzKgzUzKEShgo0xnMq7MMoVtU03OBWae4IRn8TzsEbqzu/dY7IAgeue2v
 EwKgmtG5Gn0LyszvYkEDs1i5xL7ICTVIVUM6/mzYfAyqb4MFeaROu9Em/utxM0LYZUMk
 5rR3v19iCA76ZnVgO4Jfg/ayRhYZD6pNoe58CEl8TPSwdXcka5xEhJJ+nPaWy3xlLRpc
 yedg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20210112;
 h=x-gm-message-state:content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version
 :subject:date:message-id:references:cc:in-reply-to:to;
 bh=dQGGNNxxRXar55StV18MNqpkjoEpZ0SPqFIcwYamuuA=;
 b=M1ZDbOqwpOZWwOTjegRkiFwFBX1mN9kZ7wSqODivO71ygJ5XAZhmFXQRVuYq3R7Vqf
 Sdei36nlDqje5SO3i5hyvccXwK/LnHIaO44jVKxAirYY8gNYjfkfp0cUYuGm4XuvWGDz
 HK85qnaH4wAEHGEN+6eDcJiCZbPVhGLz0RfPaCIVnpGW8i85CWpIh6c0qCSYWBHgs4jg
 +JLDWdqFfrDMQKm7k0QHyzDzThHUBC4xU0Zq9pdd/mQkYl7e0esBUYs2WVsbkEd+jM6k
 GBCPVTEJ7c4CR8/jaOj1+/l6WQlbGmPD8fqN/oj+75XH+9DUeEozfywQm681iLUrHfVz
 tLMQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora8OSoxElN0ELYVg49nLh1UiJefQ8GelxOmfErVm95yxdU3CeUrS
 H0eVhnn6bXqAkbmz08ukTEclpw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1sf+u87qB+2C5ryJOJBX1pRy+cbP5fjqTaWex4TYNZ2M2KLYwoZ60u5Ki7n9PKp3cX9WJlr0g==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:3854:b0:104:8f90:35f6 with SMTP id
 z20-20020a056870385400b001048f9035f6mr2079756oal.153.1655842246393; 
 Tue, 21 Jun 2022 13:10:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple ([2600:380:c04d:c590:300b:cc05:5212:9a8f])
 by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id
 r3-20020a056870734300b000e686d1386dsm9588156oal.7.2022.06.21.13.10.45
 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128);
 Tue, 21 Jun 2022 13:10:45 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary=Apple-Mail-CF7771C0-E5BA-4159-A36C-3B925F5114CC
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2022 13:10:43 -0700
Message-Id: <8E13E507-55F8-480B-A1A9-2643BC9C1C48@voskuil.org>
References: <CALeFGL0CQC4_swZTt-=sbe=ZiCmRthZghGDtrWFx5bQCBeOJcg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALeFGL0CQC4_swZTt-=sbe=ZiCmRthZghGDtrWFx5bQCBeOJcg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Keagan McClelland <keagan.mcclelland@gmail.com>,
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (19F77)
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 20:10:49 -0000


--Apple-Mail-CF7771C0-E5BA-4159-A36C-3B925F5114CC
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


> On Jun 21, 2022, at 12:28, Keagan McClelland via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@=
lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>=20
> =EF=BB=BF
> > The PoW security of Bitcoin benefits all Bitcoin users, proportional to t=
he
> value of BTC they hold; if Bitcoin blocks aren't reliably created the valu=
e of
> *all* BTC goes down. It doesn't make sense for the entire cost of that sec=
urity
> to be paid for on a per-tx basis.

Actually it does. People who transact are realizing the benefit of money - t=
he avoidance of barter costs. Those who never transact, never realize any be=
nefit.

> And there's a high chance paying for it on a
> per-tx basis won't work anyway due to lack of consistent demand.
>=20
> FWIW I prefer the demurrage route. Having something with finite supply as a=
 means of measuring economic activity is unprecedented and I believe deeply i=
mportant. I'm sympathetic to the argument that the security of the chain sho=
uld not be solely the responsibility of transactors.

Chain security - censorship resistance (as opposed to individual double-spen=
d security), is entirely dependent upon tx fees.

> 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.

There is zero point in saving if you never spend. You can instead just burn y=
our coin.

> While inflation may be simpler to implement (just chop off the last few ha=
lvings), I think it would be superior (on the assumption that such a hodl ta=
x was necessary) to keep the supply fixed and have people's utxo balances de=
cay, at least at the level of the UX.

A hoard decays naturally due to opportunity cost. Investing it requires tran=
saction to invest, and transaction to earn (profit), and transaction to retu=
rn it (interest).

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

Demand is the only reason we save, and eventually transacting is the only mo=
tivation for saving. No transacting implies no demand - and no security.

e

> Keagan
>=20
>> On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 2:42 AM Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-de=
v@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>=20
>>=20
>>> On Sun, Jun 19, 2022 at 2:04 PM Manuel Costa via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-de=
v@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>  if we start seeing issues with block rewards being too low to maintain a=
cceptable security, we're going to have multiple solutions being implemented=
 for it, and definitely a hard fork to indefinitely maintain some degree of b=
lock subsidy
>>=20
>> if we failed to first try increasing block demand with advanced transacti=
on support, it would seem like we were just throwing money and growth away t=
o support one narrative (simplicty of function), while destroying another (f=
inite supply)=20
>>=20
>> if stuff like covenant support and mweb gets us higher fees, with stuff l=
ike on-chain mixing protocols, vaults, and higher utility, it might be more t=
han enough to sustain bitcoin on fees alone forever
>> =20
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

--Apple-Mail-CF7771C0-E5BA-4159-A36C-3B925F5114CC
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"content-type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3D=
utf-8"></head><body dir=3D"auto"><div dir=3D"ltr"></div><div dir=3D"ltr"><br=
></div><div dir=3D"ltr"><blockquote type=3D"cite">On Jun 21, 2022, at 12:28,=
 Keagan McClelland via bitcoin-dev &lt;bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org=
&gt; wrote:<br><br></blockquote></div><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div dir=3D"=
ltr">=EF=BB=BF<div dir=3D"ltr">&gt; The PoW security of Bitcoin benefits all=
 Bitcoin users, proportional to the<br>value of BTC they hold; if Bitcoin bl=
ocks aren't reliably created the value of<br>*all* BTC goes down. It doesn't=
 make sense for the entire cost of that security<br>to be paid for on a per-=
tx basis.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Actually it does. Peop=
le who transact are realizing the benefit of money - the avoidance of barter=
 costs. Those who never transact, never realize any benefit.</div><br><block=
quote type=3D"cite"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"> And there's a high ch=
ance paying for it on a<br>per-tx basis won't work anyway due to lack of con=
sistent demand.<div><br></div><div>FWIW I prefer the demurrage route. Having=
 something with finite supply as a means of measuring economic activity is u=
nprecedented and I believe deeply important. I'm sympathetic to the argument=
 that the security of the chain should not be solely the responsibility of t=
ransactors.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Chain security=
 - censorship resistance (as opposed to individual double-spend security), i=
s entirely dependent upon tx fees.</div><br><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div d=
ir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div> We realize the value of money on receipt, h=
old *and* spend and it would be appropriate for there to be a balance of fee=
s to that effect.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>There is=
 zero point in saving if you never spend. You can instead just burn your coi=
n.</div><br><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div=
> While inflation may be simpler to implement (just chop off the last few ha=
lvings), I think it would be superior (on the assumption that such a hodl ta=
x was necessary) to keep the supply fixed and have people's utxo balances de=
cay, at least at the level of the UX.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br=
></div><div>A hoard decays naturally due to opportunity cost. Investing it r=
equires transaction to invest, and transaction to earn (profit), and transac=
tion to return it (interest).</div><br><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div dir=3D=
"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>But also none of this should be reasons we don't=
 improve Bitcoin's value (and therefore demand)</div></div></div></blockquot=
e><div><br></div><div>Demand is the only reason we save, and eventually tran=
sacting is the only motivation for saving. No transacting implies no demand -=
 and no security.</div><div><br></div><div>e</div><br><blockquote type=3D"ci=
te"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><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.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<b=
r></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;=
border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><d=
iv dir=3D"ltr"><br></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" cla=
ss=3D"gmail_attr">On Sun, Jun 19, 2022 at 2:04 PM Manuel Costa via bitcoin-d=
ev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_b=
lank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockqu=
ote 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>&nbsp;if we st=
art seeing issues with block rewards being too low to maintain acceptable se=
curity, we're going to have multiple solutions being implemented for it, and=
 definitely a hard fork to indefinitely maintain some degree of block subsid=
y</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>if we failed to first try incr=
easing block demand with advanced transaction support, it would seem like we=
 were just throwing money and growth away to support one narrative (simplict=
y&nbsp;of function), while destroying another (finite supply)&nbsp;</div><di=
v><br></div><div>if stuff like covenant support and mweb gets us higher fees=
, with&nbsp;stuff like on-chain mixing protocols, vaults, and higher utility=
, it might be more than enough to sustain bitcoin on fees alone forever</div=
><div>&nbsp;</div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">b=
itcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" r=
el=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailma=
n/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
<span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>bitcoi=
n-dev mailing list</span><br><span>bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</sp=
an><br><span>https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev<=
/span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>=

--Apple-Mail-CF7771C0-E5BA-4159-A36C-3B925F5114CC--