From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B505C002D for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2022 12:12:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1050740C96 for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2022 12:12:15 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org 1050740C96 Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20210112 header.b=B5UxgD0W X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kImq3r6I7znl for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2022 12:12:14 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org C72204041C Received: from mail-wr1-x42f.google.com (mail-wr1-x42f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42f]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C72204041C for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2022 12:12:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wr1-x42f.google.com with SMTP id v14so15222511wra.5 for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2022 05:12:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=xVF2guQhR8JAzfDeYp1+hLEqyqGEqc8pcYHUOW5tXjU=; b=B5UxgD0WExCzNbSoEuoHBgJ0f3bfSpkxlHKpf+3BWyE6eMimbrzwMyxL0+jfXaClAk WUZlvu3KZTWfCzU3zK1Mfmm/dnGNGq7A4X+Y627kf4Vz+ZWzrYQolElXotXU2sjfkjr4 O4xV0Cx6mT3sg8tNQWBICkhXNnAPqjhjffh4VFOqACEEMj9YaPt2atPHdYxNQa4SUZB8 dHXTErJq/IA45wAELDEQ8984FHkX/3BwrYPAq+b6t7zxK1d4c9IKa47rYWWYaJWsF4tH 3ma5xSgmPe7ZA1inplR2bLdEZ1QQvCL2+9sln3Q7AqiBLs0H0/W18EPx3XT/7bH6Jsf0 +JfA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=xVF2guQhR8JAzfDeYp1+hLEqyqGEqc8pcYHUOW5tXjU=; b=Ool9qeU/LuoPN6m1gf7GZYgtK8G2rr8C09SQyNSEC557ftXDt+O+QRWZddjO1oWKC6 R0HTfNzV0iFBE10oTtmLZ2HzBX8sJ8kAF368GpSVX0W6BPB0PCpiVA9A17GmIn38Mje+ O+be6Q3sI/AwkGvnElPHngeBKiyueJttnG0o7gg5Px7HpcCm9tk2eUpiumQLEG7/Zu1T +fLjPkJi6KHwwGk+hsMNusuHLqli6DTy45UOOOei6syw42sPX33vfPaMyG/2AcpelrQX sOiQKp3wJSEtne50vehumJ5dJVuXtdjNet90vuMR+f3TEwVjSgHMo1qSZfLFSF1Bz1JZ Go9A== X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora90xnu+uBwRF2KyWPezCVsdDctgZSoSJdNivIeYUT5/wPnF/qT0 KMkWPi+/VzzVAy+8PHYNmm6lQ9U0yPAwT1jq7ne497sS X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1sAut5IukLlAXnqVRCaDUYFpqEGaETR5hgrQfesB6d9aIZGjaCxNLCVFWXhKgvIzQNE9D6EWcylDz+RSWExvTQ= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:1789:b0:21d:7699:3322 with SMTP id e9-20020a056000178900b0021d76993322mr2895693wrg.121.1657714331771; Wed, 13 Jul 2022 05:12:11 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Gino Pinuto Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2022 14:11:59 +0200 Message-ID: To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e26b4705e3aeb1cf" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 13 Jul 2022 12:18:59 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Security problems with relying on transaction fees for security 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: Wed, 13 Jul 2022 12:12:15 -0000 --000000000000e26b4705e3aeb1cf Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" What about burning all fees and keep a block reward that will smooth out while keeping the ~21M coins limit ? Benefits : - Miners would still be incentivized to collect higher fees transaction with the indirect perspective to generate more reward in future. - Revenues are equally distributed over time to all participants and we solve the overnight discrepancy. - Increased velocity of money will reduce the immediate supply of bitcoin cooling down the economy. - Reduction of velocity will have an impact on miners only if it persevere in the long term but short term they will still perceive the buffered reward. I don't have ideas yet on how to elegantly implement this. On Wed, 13 Jul 2022, 12:08 John Tromp via bitcoin-dev, < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > The emission curve lasts over 100 years because Bitcoin success state > requires it to be entrenched globally. > > It effectively doesn't. The last 100 years from 2040-2140 only emits a > pittance of about 0.4 of all bitcoin. > > What matters for proper distribution is the shape of the emission > curve. If you emit 99% in the first year and 1% in the next 100 years, > your emission "lasts" over 100 years, and you achieve a super low > supply inflation rate immediately after 1 year, but it's obviously a > terrible form of distribution. > > This is easy to quantify as the expected time of emission which would > be 0.99 * 0.5yr + 0.01* 51yr = 2 years. > Bitcoin is not much better in that the expected time of emission of an > bitcoin satisfies x = 0.5*2yr + 0.5*(4+x) and thus equals 6 years. > > Monero appears much better since its tail emission yields an infinite > expected time of emission, but if we avoid infinities by looking at > just the soft total emission [1], which is all that is emitted before > a 1% yearly inflation, then Monero is seen to actually be a lot worse > than Bitcoin, due to emitting over 40% in its first year and halving > the reward much faster. Ethereum is much worse still with its huge > premine and PoS coins like Algorand are scraping the bottom with their > expected emission time of 0. > > There's only one coin whose expected (soft) emission time is larger > than bitcoin's, and it's about an order of magnitude larger, at 50 > years. > > [1] > https://john-tromp.medium.com/a-case-for-using-soft-total-supply-1169a188d153 > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --000000000000e26b4705e3aeb1cf Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
What about burning all fees and keep a block reward = that will smooth out while keeping the ~21M coins limit ?
=
Benefits :
- Miners woul= d still be incentivized to collect higher fees transaction with the indirec= t perspective to generate more reward in future.
- R= evenues are equally distributed over time to all participants and we solve = the overnight discrepancy.
- Increased velocity of m= oney will reduce the immediate supply of bitcoin cooling down the economy.<= /div>
- Reduction of velocity will have an impact on miner= s only if it persevere in the long term but short term they will still perc= eive the buffered reward.

I don't have ideas yet on how to elegantly implement this.

<= br>
On Wed,= 13 Jul 2022, 12:08 John Tromp via bitcoin-dev, <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org= > wrote:
> The emission curve= lasts over 100 years because Bitcoin success state requires it to be entre= nched globally.

It effectively doesn't. The last 100 years from 2040-2140 only emits a<= br> pittance of about 0.4 of all bitcoin.

What matters for proper distribution is the shape of the emission
curve. If you emit 99% in the first year and 1% in the next 100 years,
your emission "lasts" over 100 years, and you achieve a super low=
supply inflation rate immediately after 1 year, but it's obviously a terrible form of distribution.

This is easy to quantify as the expected time of emission which would
be 0.99 * 0.5yr + 0.01* 51yr =3D 2 years.
Bitcoin is not much better in that the expected time of emission of an
bitcoin satisfies x =3D 0.5*2yr + 0.5*(4+x) and thus equals 6 years.

Monero appears much better since its tail emission yields an infinite
expected time of emission, but if we avoid infinities by looking at
just the soft total emission [1], which is all that is emitted before
a 1% yearly inflation, then Monero is seen to actually be a lot worse
than Bitcoin, due to emitting over 40% in its first year and halving
the reward much faster. Ethereum is much worse still with its huge
premine and PoS coins like Algorand are scraping the bottom with their
expected emission time of 0.

There's only one coin whose expected (soft) emission time is larger
than bitcoin's, and it's about an order of magnitude larger, at 50<= br> years.

[1] https://= john-tromp.medium.com/a-case-for-using-soft-total-supply-1169a188d153 _______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundati= on.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--000000000000e26b4705e3aeb1cf--