From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7848BC002D for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2022 17:00:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DF0440573 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2022 17:00:12 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org 2DF0440573 Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=petertodd.org header.i=@petertodd.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=fm1 header.b=itDsJsAx; dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=fm3 header.b=Y6LDQeA+ X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.802 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.802 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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 FW-TUhXT--PT for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2022 17:00:11 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org 082CB401E1 Received: from wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.24]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 082CB401E1 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2022 17:00:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id D16D03200708; Mon, 11 Jul 2022 13:00:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 11 Jul 2022 13:00:05 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=petertodd.org; h=cc:cc:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:sender :subject:subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1657558804; x=1657645204; bh=oP tI+V5JD6iYR2/pAdp0F4Idux494rDkdNIltnos/bM=; b=itDsJsAxk882xE8KKY +XHfB+d04KwdbZtixl3wiHzmvyElO12TRTqaFyq1uw4mcppPHmvSCuslrTrU+Tgg vfshT7SIFNOCIb4ko/BFmZ+M/6ILHWocaVNSpYKuCRRDPpkCa8SDaEjEDS4bR6bD Phz0f68RvS5ipqvvIS9ptqFtTdTYpZyl/vCfz2oRVY86aQ+GQEmhYg+lcitqByWn TLiSfzqk5tGzkWzghdp+N4XPHi+StAA2G6KXfs7HfF7w06n50q0Vf8NsD7SCQd/o vs+ChsffTnqnkXIFrdJO/DT4YYWbWDcFZXNVAY61k70u91kS+ba4QLz3pTBPMY1A LO6Q== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:date:date:feedback-id :feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id :mime-version:references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to :x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm3; t=1657558804; x=1657645204; bh=oPtI+V5JD6iYR2/pAdp0F4Idux49 4rDkdNIltnos/bM=; b=Y6LDQeA+cH6rciOOHYkthbkgA1uN/KbsHvOjiv9AvgTm vsihnFNVP/IGM3X1WGen/b25H+e2ynLL0/EsP1tya3FfSPfs3JpYd8PCFVjVCVVv 5x2eE3SrHZYyuRjUMANS7uzmBgxeN6jhO/u5+VwK918qTxyqtJy6OSpQy83lNzD4 7nbcTTUy+o3jjFvc8QMQBsZqyAHGSlcx2HbTIuabcWoqh+YIUU2DZgFDjbSkaSAj eJNMKzAZYinEpodxdzkwQNj39IF3w1DqcCdhU3XxgL/FSrVabS9wNErOIBfdFIil +oNpNeAEaQL3L7p+s3ViHQ1iBq2kBRiNMG918v7B3Q== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvfedrudejfedguddtiecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepfffhvfevuffkfhggtggujgesgh dtroertddtvdenucfhrhhomheprfgvthgvrhcuvfhougguuceophgvthgvsehpvghtvghr thhouggurdhorhhgqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpedutdffleekiedtfefgteefjefhff eiffevleegtdfhueeffeejveeljeekfefhieenucffohhmrghinhepphgvthgvrhhtohgu ugdrohhrghenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhroh hmpehushgvrhesphgvthgvrhhtohguugdrohhrgh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i525146e8:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Mon, 11 Jul 2022 13:00:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D2B375F7C1; Mon, 11 Jul 2022 12:59:53 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2022 12:59:53 -0400 From: Peter Todd To: Anthony Towns Message-ID: References: <20220711023247.GA21856@erisian.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="/ftE8NY1AzeElKdO" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20220711023247.GA21856@erisian.com.au> Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion 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, 11 Jul 2022 17:00:12 -0000 --/ftE8NY1AzeElKdO Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 12:32:47PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > This isn't necessarily true: if the losses are due to a common cause, > then they'll be heavily correlated rather than independent; for example > losses could be caused by a bug in a popular wallet/exchange software > that sends funds to invalid addresses, or by a war or natural disaster > that damages key storage hardware. They're also not independent over > time -- people improve their key storage habits over time; eg switching > to less buggy wallets/exchanges, validating addresses before using them, > using distributed multisig to prevent a localised disaster from being > catastrophic. People clearly continue to make downright irrational decisions about coin security, doing things putting their entire crypto savings at risk for clai= med 5% returns. Even if people were rational, the coin loss rate would clearly reach a floor because as the probability of coin loss goes down, bothering to spend extra effort to decrease that already small chance is pointless. You mentioning b= lack swan events actually strengthens my point: at low coin loss rates the true = loss rate is dominated by black swan events. So it's pointless to go to extra ef= fort to prevent them. Finally, you're forgetting that coin loss also includes *intentional* losses =66rom proof-of-sacrifice protocols. There are a number of examples on Bitc= oin. Again, they put a floor on how much coin loss could diminish. > loss rate. If that's the case, then the rate at which funds are lost will > vary chaotically, leading to "inflationary" periods in between events, > and comparatively strong deflationary shocks when these events occur. Give me an example of an *actual* inflation rate you expect to see, given a disaster of a given magnitude. If you actually do the numbers on this, you'll realize it takes absolutely catastrophic black swan events that make WW2 look like a minor conflict to = make even insignificant inflation rate changes due to changes in lost coins. --=20 https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org --/ftE8NY1AzeElKdO Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEE0RcYcKRzsEwFZ3N5Lly11TVRLzcFAmLMVwcACgkQLly11TVR Lzen6g/7B5HuGvCOMUmuLtX1Qa2h9QKr88LWyW9gWKbnBzCxVASqH0faI6/Pcdxx YeeGyUKJ5cgKUBaI/RX+pUCxE/DpP+jv0ChdGJOwpoa3e38P8igGrQbdDHyffgCj vNktDn38VVQGHsxGHQehT7W9NxcVCtpBDK1Spu83tG1gTRxqMTANkXUyb15b01iT Pr8qKEMYi3q4B+UC90k2yxHv4bjR0R9KFtVWVr8sIoPQrxM1GBlBaxVs031sHVUw wPRPpxruWSEZGs8xEqVq0FAOzzS5LNaPYsaqdEz+lYhKsJ7cKUr3Qxu45Zyb3j94 B/nZXEZTW0XLYXw84U3NeZ9ug6M0jrUJhqNva9fOZ0J8CUhZ3+KwiGFbKCE2Fhfa S91tu2lhbDS/gyq5PNTyns0n2IaFg9SFZOfLaUyZaLA3ttShN0bVemNXhImou3gN yutOk8YpHwCHwTS6MOgP04ITxLrvim5qghzGV9HaW5QmC6MGTYdJ6l05zELjXrPY JXj/FCoPwbvi1lOcdvrYhVoem9WkOd4PjaxReKqei17Ywotlr3UWvvdLP6GNjvJC b/6etO1WyhKNapXlwuGk6OHMvqqOAWQk7jTbi5ZPW6/8hBsrojQ/g/6QmsaHfO3p M5/hWsVrjsmeIE0jLGZOkFFiEvHLlnMhXMXqP0tBAJXGMlErkVo= =LumJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --/ftE8NY1AzeElKdO--