From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00ECDC002D for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2022 11:44:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF12560F47 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2022 11:44:03 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org CF12560F47 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.502 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 myFBgRHso664 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2022 11:44:02 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: delayed 00:09:20 by SQLgrey-1.8.0 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org 93E3D60B47 Received: from smtpauth.rollernet.us (smtpauth.rollernet.us [IPv6:2607:fe70:0:3::d]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 93E3D60B47 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2022 11:44:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtpauth.rollernet.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtpauth.rollernet.us (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00D432801D33; Mon, 18 Jul 2022 04:34:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webmail.rollernet.us (webmail.rollernet.us [IPv6:2607:fe70:0:14::a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by smtpauth.rollernet.us (Postfix) with ESMTPSA; Mon, 18 Jul 2022 04:34:39 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2022 01:34:39 -1000 From: "David A. Harding" To: Peter Todd , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion In-Reply-To: References: <6xuj-ljJ9hvME-TIgWHmfPpad4aJ-1zTYSH1NBuFL_gi-6hJHMayWLEAhcEyw_lqmkR24ee8uMIAH6n4TDguk_5fJ8och99Em3m5y1R6brE=@protonmail.com> User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.4.10 Message-ID: <08a53f48e81f1da06bd688e524ae4ec7@dtrt.org> X-Sender: dave@dtrt.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rollernet-Abuse: Contact abuse@rollernet.us to report. Abuse policy: http://www.rollernet.us/policy X-Rollernet-Submit: Submit ID 73f5.62d5454f.988dd.0 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: Mon, 18 Jul 2022 11:44:04 -0000 On 2022-07-10 07:27, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote: > The block subsidy directly ties miner revenue to the total value of > Bitcoin: > that's exactly how you want to incentivise a service that keeps Bitcoin > secure. I'm confused. I thought your argument in the OP of this thread was that a perpetual block subsidy would *not* be tied to the total value of bitcoin. It'd be tied to the total value of bitcoin *lost* each year on average. If so, would you then agree that the inability of a perpetual block 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 Bitcoin secure? Thanks, -Dave