From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E521FC002D for ; Sun, 10 Jul 2022 14:17:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3424409D0 for ; Sun, 10 Jul 2022 14:17:49 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org B3424409D0 Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com header.i=@protonmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=protonmail3 header.b=mjnWXBPY X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.101 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.101 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, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R7K0kOyhZj3R for ; Sun, 10 Jul 2022 14:17:47 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 1EF7E40984 Received: from mail-4325.protonmail.ch (mail-4325.protonmail.ch [185.70.43.25]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1EF7E40984 for ; Sun, 10 Jul 2022 14:17:46 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2022 14:17:36 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail3; t=1657462664; x=1657721864; bh=CvlyPFheh5ZeCZrvGMiJhu4fhYW8Qu0D43AK4gJiH/Q=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To: References:Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To: Feedback-ID:Message-ID; b=mjnWXBPYwniOar1EnoDJT9k3aBcqoSvhLtt3M73erh9x0vhatrZVAntu/r5Ma6y+W cFRPtxv/fstyLnN7FHu6KvJIo075V8FUakpEGex5CLqKSpEZRiswVSH20YhobPYrdQ VccpPQFfddjAW0tFxan+K+7Zr8lN2ylVIha1lz4uiOrxwSoNTKtsLpijGNtmNT5tQv flTC0VPT82v0PDG3qAlIer/EVIk/Z41XHyzgxkvKl8ggrAa+gfkUzoUa5BqsO2dT2s BY7wp8CWM6qQtX49c2TqPkRyFH5fhM8xDTeN2kzZWnY+3x4FLtRcnekOtJdfoyjH8H 2ffUBMx3YnUdQ== To: ZmnSCPxj From: alicexbt Reply-To: alicexbt Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <6xuj-ljJ9hvME-TIgWHmfPpad4aJ-1zTYSH1NBuFL_gi-6hJHMayWLEAhcEyw_lqmkR24ee8uMIAH6n4TDguk_5fJ8och99Em3m5y1R6brE=@protonmail.com> References: <6xuj-ljJ9hvME-TIgWHmfPpad4aJ-1zTYSH1NBuFL_gi-6hJHMayWLEAhcEyw_lqmkR24ee8uMIAH6n4TDguk_5fJ8och99Em3m5y1R6brE=@protonmail.com> Feedback-ID: 40602938:user:proton MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 10 Jul 2022 14:23:57 +0000 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: Sun, 10 Jul 2022 14:17:50 -0000 Hi ZmnSCPxj, > Thus, we should instead prepare for a future where the block subsidy must= be removed, possibly before the existing schedule removes it, in case a ma= jority coalition of miner ever decides to censor particular transactions wi= thout community consensus. > Fortunately forcing the block subsidy to 0 is a softfork and thus easier = to deploy. `consensus.nSubsidyHalvingInterval` for mainnet in [chainparams.cpp][1] can= be decreased to 195000. This will reduce the number of halvings from 34 to= 14 and subsidy will be 0 when it becomes less than 0.01 although not sure = if this will be a soft fork. I doubt there will be consensus for it because all the [projections and pre= dictability][2] about bitcoin(currency) would be affected by this change. M= aybe everyone can agree with this change if most of the miners start being = 'compliant' like one of the coinjoin implementation. [1]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/chainparams.cpp#L66 [2]: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Controlled_supply /dev/fd0 Sent with Proton Mail secure email. ------- Original Message ------- On Saturday, July 9th, 2022 at 9:59 PM, ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Good morning e, and list, > > > Yet you posted several links which made that specific correlation, to w= hich I was responding. > > > > Math cannot prove how much coin is =E2=80=9Clost=E2=80=9D, and even if = it was provable that the amount of coin lost converges to the amount produc= ed, it is of no consequence - for the reasons I=E2=80=99ve already pointed = out. The amount of market production has no impact on market price, just as= it does not with any other good. > > > > The reason to object to perpetual issuance is the impact on censorship = resistance, not on price. > > > To clarify about censorship resistance and perpetual issuance ("tail emis= sion"): > > * Suppose I have two blockchains, one with a constant block subsidy, and = one which had a block subsidy but the block subsidy has become negligible o= r zero. > * Now consider a censoring miner. > * If the miner rejects particular transactions (i.e. "censors") the miner= loses out on the fees of those transactions. > * Presumably, the miner does this because it gains other benefits from th= e censorship, economically equal or better to the earnings lost. > * If the blockchain had a block subsidy, then the loss the miner incurs i= s small relative to the total earnings of each block. > * If the blockchain had 0 block subsidy, then the loss the miner incurs i= s large relative to the total earnings of each block. > * Thus, in the latter situation, the external benefit the miner gains fro= m the censorship has to be proportionately larger than in the first situati= on. > > Basically, the block subsidy is a market distortion: the block subsidy er= odes the value of held coins to pay for the security of coins being moved. > But the block subsidy is still issued whether or not coins being moved ar= e censored or not censored. > Thus, there is no incentive, considering only the block subsidy, to not c= ensor coin movements. > Only per-transaction fees have an incentive to not censor coin movements. > > > Thus, we should instead prepare for a future where the block subsidy must= be removed, possibly before the existing schedule removes it, in case a ma= jority coalition of miner ever decides to censor particular transactions wi= thout community consensus. > Fortunately forcing the block subsidy to 0 is a softfork and thus easier = to deploy. > > > Regards, > ZmnSCPxj > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev