From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E0D9C0032 for ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion References: From: JK In-Reply-To: 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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