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
|
Return-Path: <jk_14@op.pl>
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::138])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E0D9C0032
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 5 Nov 2023 14:45:07 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D2A48131A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 5 Nov 2023 14:45:07 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 4D2A48131A
Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org;
dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=op.pl header.i=@op.pl header.a=rsa-sha256
header.s=2011 header.b=C4d/Lwf5
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.602
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.602 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001,
RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001,
SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id f4iv_IiGWcdf
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 5 Nov 2023 14:45:06 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: delayed 300 seconds by postgrey-1.37 at util1.osuosl.org;
Sun, 05 Nov 2023 14:45:05 UTC
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org F1D52812DA
Received: from smtpo94.poczta.onet.pl (smtpo94.poczta.onet.pl
[213.180.149.147])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1D52812DA
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 5 Nov 2023 14:45:05 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.0.97] (87-206-156-181.dynamic.chello.pl
[87.206.156.181])
(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
(Authenticated sender: jk_144@onet.pl)
by smtp.poczta.onet.pl (Onet) with ESMTPSA id 4SNcZg69ZXzhlG;
Sun, 5 Nov 2023 15:39:55 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=op.pl; s=2011;
t=1699195196; bh=04qoNXtq3mMRZ/yzO5KMNY+umJ1hE/Gi9+lEuzWkRl0=;
h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To:From;
b=C4d/Lwf59amBAtXC9e1f//2DgYiOcHBcsqpE73Yz+dsCGCrSeG6BEsJ2lVHDPQn18
zIpwZDlDTg8HJi+3RY/NCv5nZOdYeQc2OfNv+Fx3vUUy+wjJWYJFwU7HvXYPn4Wgry
rzzYDRuiGaLeAY1RS08sA1ecOf5vo7fcfvNTa/h4=
Message-ID: <21dd55af-ca9d-48b0-b2aa-4a1399f15611@op.pl>
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2023 15:39:53 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: pl
To: Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
References: <CAJowKgJXxS3L=pQR=jhSXBgdDR9k5mwPyKhKkuFESw5_qOgdrQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: JK <jk_14@op.pl>
In-Reply-To: <CAJowKgJXxS3L=pQR=jhSXBgdDR9k5mwPyKhKkuFESw5_qOgdrQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 05 Nov 2023 14:59:36 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] ossification and misaligned incentive concerns
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: Sun, 05 Nov 2023 14:45:07 -0000
I'm worried even more about something else, but still fits into the same
topic category.
A tax in the form of a direct tax is less acceptable to people than a
hidden tax. This is human nature, as the saying goes, "What the eye
doesn't see, the heart doesn't grieve over." A high direct tax (e.g., on
a one-time transaction) is much more irritating than a tax of the same
amount but hidden (especially when it affects all cash holders equally,
as in the case of inflation).
There is no reason to believe that in any alternative financial system,
it will be different ("This time is different." No, it is not.)
The analogy is clear: a transaction tax is on-chain fee, an inflation
tax is the block reward. And just in case: miners are only able to
collect payment for providing network security in an amount equal to the
sum collected in both of these taxes, and no single satoshi more (the
principle that "There's no such thing as a free lunch" applies).
Now, a little thought experiment:
Imagine a system that tries to maintain a constant level of difficulty
and reacts flexibly to changes in difficulty, by modulating the block
reward level accordingly (using negative feedback).
It is known that the system will oscillate around a certain level of the
block reward value (around a certain level of inflation) that provides
the desired level of network security.
Furthermore, Earth is a closed system with finite resources, making it
hard to imagine a situation where Bitcoin is responsible for e.g. 95%
of global energy consumption (while complaints already arise at 0.1%).
In other words, the level of network security is de facto limited from
the top, whether we like it or not.
And for a naturally limited and still acceptable level of network
security (vide: "Change the code, not the climate") - there is a
corresponding level of inflation.
To sum this up, the most important conclusion to remember is:
For a natural level of network security, there is a natural level of
inflation.
I'll add a very relevant comment I know from the internet:
"It makes sense. Something akin to what the central banks do by setting
interest rates, but algorithmic, leading to a 'natural' (rather than
manipulated) level of inflation. But different, because it's directly
tied to security. I haven't thought whether it would be an issue if it
works in one direction only (halvings, but no doublings), but it might.
When I was learning about Bitcoin, I heard "It costs you nothing to
store your bitcoin (as opposed to, say, gold). You get security for
free." and thought it sounded wonderful, but too good to be true. There
is no free lunch and all that... I understand a lack of inflation is
aligned with Austrian economics, but the Austrians didn't know a
monetary system whose security was tied to inflation. So it's a new
concept to wrap one's head around."
https://stacker.news/items/291420
There is growing awareness of the lack of a free market between active
and passive participants in Bitcoin and growing awareness of the
inevitability of the problem that will arise in the future as a result.
And there is slowly growing acceptance of well-thought-out proposals to
fix this situation.
The free market is more important than finite supply.
Regards
Jaroslaw
W dniu 03.11.2023 o 19:24, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev pisze:
> currently, there are providers of anonymity services, scaling services,
> custody, and other services layered on top of bitcoin using trust-based
> and federated models.
>
> as bitcoin becomes more popular, these service providers have
> increasingly had a louder "voice" in development and maintenance of the
> protocol
>
> holders generally want these features
>
> but service providers have an incentive to maintain a "moat" around
> their services
>
> in summary, making privacy, scaling and vaulting "hard" for regular
> users, keeping it off-chain and federated... is now incentivised among
> a vocal, but highly technical, minority
>
> is anyone else worried about this?
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
|
