From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YxJsr-0002x4-Dq for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 26 May 2015 18:47:25 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.195]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1YxJsq-0000Se-2G for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 26 May 2015 18:47:25 +0000 Received: from mfilter42-d.gandi.net (mfilter42-d.gandi.net [217.70.178.172]) by relay3-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC52CA80C6 for ; Tue, 26 May 2015 20:47:17 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mfilter42-d.gandi.net Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net ([IPv6:::ffff:217.70.183.195]) by mfilter42-d.gandi.net (mfilter42-d.gandi.net [::ffff:10.0.15.180]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q9TI_Kdi_PL4 for ; Tue, 26 May 2015 20:47:16 +0200 (CEST) X-Originating-IP: 89.246.69.218 Received: from [192.168.77.76] (unknown [89.246.69.218]) (Authenticated sender: thomasv@electrum.org) by relay3-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 11B78A80B9 for ; Tue, 26 May 2015 20:47:15 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <5564BFB3.5080403@electrum.org> Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 20:47:15 +0200 From: Thomas Voegtlin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bitcoin Development References: <5550D8BE.6070207@electrum.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. X-Headers-End: 1YxJsq-0000Se-2G Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Long-term mining incentives X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 18:47:25 -0000 Hello Mike, >=20 > Are you aware of my proposal for network assurance contracts? >=20 Yes I am aware of that; sorry for not mentioning it. I think it is an interesting proposal, but I would not rely on it today, because it includes a large share of unproven social experiment. (Bitcoin too is a social experiment, but so far it has been working) > But I agree with Gavin that attempting to plan for 20 years from now is > ambitious at best. Bitcoin might not even exist 20 years from now, or m= ight > be an abandoned backwater a la USENET. I agree with that, but I don't think it can be used as a way to justify how decisions are made today. The opposition to block size increase comes from two things: (1) The perceived risk of increased centralization. (2) Long-term considerations on the need for fee pressure. I believe you and Gavin have properly addressed (1). Concerning (2), I think the belief that miners can eventually be funded by a fee market is wishful thinking. Thus, I am not against the proposed block size increase= . However, the issue of long-term mining incentives remains. So far, the only proven method to incentivize mining has been direct block reward. The easiest solution to ensure long-term viability of Bitcoin would be to put an end to the original block halving schedule, and to keep the block reward constant (this is what Monero does, btw). That solution is inflationary, but in practice, users happen to lose private keys all the time. The rate of coins loss would eventually converge to whatever rate of emission is chosen, because the care people take of their coins depends on their value. Another solution, that does not break Bitcoin's social contract, would be to keep the original block halving schedule, but to allow miners to also redeem lost coins (defined as: coins that have not moved for a fixed number of years. Some time averaging of the lost coins may be needed in order to prevent non-productive miner strategies). That solution would create less uncertainty on the actual money supply, and better acceptability. I do not expect such a solution to be adopted before miner incentives become a problem. Neither am I attempting to predict the future; a completely different solution might be found before the problem arises, or Bitcoin might stop to exist for some other reason. However, if I had to decide today, I would choose such a solution, instead of relying on completely unproven mechanisms. More important, since we need to decide about block size today, I want to make it clear that my support is motivated by that long-term possibility. I believe that the "we will need fee pressure" argument can reasonably be dismissed, not because we don't know how Bitcoin will work in 20 years, but because we know how it works today, and it is not thanks to fee pressure. Thomas