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-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1XjEFU-0005Gl-Ft for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 21:24:16 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from mail-la0-f48.google.com ([209.85.215.48]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1XjEFS-00054E-TT for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 21:24:16 +0000 Received: by mail-la0-f48.google.com with SMTP id gq15so1408725lab.7 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 14:24:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=Mgfb+hrqN8Jq2V0yPOM5JtIwSb9NGxqU5QUh616sNb0=; b=g2eLVEvQTFfelgHv2b9vtNpVVm1MrMdlyb8usZXZw82m8grMRgYGiwA/QwififQXAd F7jVBeXctKBEHPGwQW8GvjBkFXrZjsVKUDmG4GXGsNB89g6KeHapm19SF/qMllkz2VN8 iz2acWFQyoEMqF84pAG3jJwVyhMz9isHUGFr+InIezftr2tEiLLlOXdoB1uAfKINWY7D Y6urlKXkHoZMQaiGkOFStds/RN1cODkqtWTzdOdwyXqijttQG1DJGLtnEREGLjrobRX5 UHVbdtgEylNYQKB+w8n6q8YYcgYNaWPyTNx6orAIXvqt9fYi6+j2k79YCFsoGtxrS3KI bQtg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmMcbn3Fqhw4Vp91V7mxU4+gHs7ydUvk2bRQpTdzspmWdQFoCLENigjFfDgu+Y5j33wOoON X-Received: by 10.112.173.100 with SMTP id bj4mr6989990lbc.78.1414531447664; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 14:24:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: ferdinando@ametrano.net Received: by 10.25.15.158 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 14:23:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [79.11.148.196] In-Reply-To: References: From: "Ferdinando M. Ametrano" Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 22:23:27 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: zwrkyh1mUc_ch-uw6OuKry9g4fQ Message-ID: To: Gregory Maxwell Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2406676a28e05068244e3 X-Spam-Score: 0.9 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (ferdinando.ametrano[at]gmail.com) 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1XjEFS-00054E-TT Cc: Bitcoin Development Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: death by halving 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, 28 Oct 2014 21:24:16 -0000 --001a11c2406676a28e05068244e3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > In november 2008 bitcoin was a much younger ecosystem, > > Or very old, indeed, if you are using unsigned arithmetic. [...] > :-) I meant 2012, of course, but loved your wit > > and the halving happened during a quite stable positive price trend > > Hardly, > > > http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/mtgoxUSD#rg60zczsg2012-10-01zeg2012-12-01ztgSzm1g10zm2g25zv indeed! http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/mtgoxUSD#rg60zczsg2012-08-01zeg2013-02-01ztgSzm1g10zm2g25zv > There is a lot more complexity to the system than the subsidy schedule. > who said the contrary? This thread is, in my opinion, a waste of time. > it might be, I have some free time right now... many people have performed planning around the current > behaviour. The current behaviour has also not shown itself to be > problematic (and we've actually experienced its largest effect already > without incident), and there are arguable benefits like encouraging > investment in mining infrastructure. > I would love a proper rebuttal of a basic economic argument. If increased competition will push mining revenues below 200% of operational costs, then the halving will suddenly switch off many non profitable mining resources. As of now the cost per block is probably already about 100USD, probably in the 50-150USD. Dismissed mining resources might even become cheaply available for malevolent agents considering a 51% attack. Moreover the timing would be perfect for the burst of any existing cloud hashing Ponzi scheme. >From a strict economic point of view allowing the halving jump is looking for trouble. To each his own. --001a11c2406676a28e05068244e3 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

> In november 2008 bitcoin was a much younger ecosystem,

= Or very old, indeed, if you are using unsigned arithmetic. [...]
=
:-) I meant 2012, of course, but loved your wit=C2=A0
=C2=A0
> and the halving happened dur= ing a quite stable positive price trend

Hardly,

http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/mt= goxUSD#rg60zczsg2012-10-01zeg2012-12-01ztgSzm1g10zm2g25zv
<= div>
indeed!
=C2=A0
There = is a lot more complexity to the system than the subsidy schedule.
who said the contrary?

This thread is, in my opinio= n, a waste of time.
it might be, I have some free time= right now...

many people have pe= rformed planning around the current
behaviour. The current behaviour has= also not shown itself to be
problematic (and we've actually experie= nced its largest effect already
without incident), and there are arguabl= e benefits like encouraging
investment in mining infrastructure.

I would love a proper rebuttal of a basic econ= omic argument. If increased competition will push mining revenues below 200= % of operational costs, then the halving will suddenly switch off many non = profitable mining resources. As of now the cost per block is probably alrea= dy about 100USD, probably in the 50-150USD.
Dismissed mining reso= urces might even become cheaply available for malevolent agents considering= a 51% attack. Moreover the timing would be perfect for the burst of any ex= isting cloud hashing Ponzi scheme.
From a strict economic p= oint of view allowing the halving jump is looking for trouble. To each his = own.

--001a11c2406676a28e05068244e3--