pull down to refresh

Pseudocode for robust tail emissionlists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-December/021299.html
3384 sats \ 56 comments \ @jk_14 25 Dec 2022 bitcoin
write
preview
related posts
2362 sats \ 8 replies \ @1fatmess 25 Dec 2022
CHRISTMAS HERESY
reply
0 sats \ 7 replies \ @jk_14 OP 25 Dec 2022
since when keeping the network secure is heresy...
reply
0 sats \ 6 replies \ @shyfire 26 Dec 2022
Security is provided by private keys and has nothing to do with hash rate
reply
10 sats \ 5 replies \ @jk_14 OP 26 Dec 2022
And now imagine Bitcoin network is running by single Antminer (technically possible) - and claim Bitcoin is still secure because it has nothing to do with hash rate, LOL
reply
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @shyfire 26 Dec 2022
Yes good point, I'm imagining it.
This single miner network would still be secure - the miner would not be able to steal my Bitcoin using fake transactions. My Bitcoin would be secure. Also the miner would be able to change the consensus rules of my node.
It would be crazy hard getting any transactions into a block though. Why?
Because people would strike a deal under the counter with this miner to have their tx included in a block. The black market for fees would be mind bogglingly huge. You might see a second miner come online to take a cut of that...
reply
10 sats \ 3 replies \ @jk_14 OP 26 Dec 2022
This single miner network would still be secure.
No comment (I could do a 51% attack, then)
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @shyfire 26 Dec 2022
Still wouldn't be able to steal my UTXOs
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @jk_14 OP 26 Dec 2022
Oh ok! The securing of the quality of "store of value" of Bitcoin - is not the securing, then... (check with Google how well the quality of "store of value" was in pair with some successfull 51% attacks)
view replies
201 sats \ 15 replies \ @jgbtc 26 Dec 2022
Please try this so I can dump your inflationary shitcoin fork for real bitcoin.
reply
80 sats \ 14 replies \ @jk_14 OP 26 Dec 2022
If 90% sooner or later will understand it finally: reduced mining + reduced transactions = network security in spiral of death
it will be still real Bitcoin (but fixed on time, fortunately)
reply
20 sats \ 13 replies \ @Louferlou 26 Dec 2022
Why people with such terrible ideas always want to sound like they are the smart ones understanding before all the others ?
reply
10 sats \ 1 reply \ @jgbtc 26 Dec 2022
It's the block size war all over again, but tail emission this time. Some people never learn.
reply
40 sats \ 0 replies \ @jk_14 OP 26 Dec 2022
Yeah, some people will never learn that even if Satoshi has hardcoded long-term security model which is in obvious conflict with Gresham's law - it doesn't mean the Gresham's law will be suddenly suspended.
The only hope for Bitcoin is that they will be a minority some day...
reply
70 sats \ 10 replies \ @jk_14 OP 26 Dec 2022
Do you really want to fight with very old and well proven Gresham's law? :)
Once we realise there is no "dogma of Satoshi's infallibility" regarding denying the Gresham's law - as he hardcoded a terrible long-term security model in Bitcoin experiment - a discussion to reach the consensus how to neutralise it - is open, and 90% of votes is nothing else but still Bitcoin (vide: SegWit case)
reply
20 sats \ 9 replies \ @Louferlou 26 Dec 2022
You can also imagine a world in which Bitcoin on-chain is used daily by 1-10% of the population and businesses, and where fees will be large enough to secure the network. An average of 10 cents / vBytes would bring as much blocksubsidy as we get now, and it is largely enough to secure the network.
Yes it'll mean that an average tx will cost 10 or 20 USD, but without this level of adoption in 20 years, where enough big amount txs are made in Bitcoin, then Bitcoin will not have really catch-up, and thus security budget will not be so important as nobody uses it. If you are right then the market will migrate on a tail emission shitcoin, but as you know we don't care about opinions and who might be right in Bitcoin space. Fork it, sell your coins, and as you seem quite sure of yourself, you will make a ton of money. But Bitcoin is a dicovery, not an invention. It is sound money or it isn't. Trying to convince others that they are wrong suspicious. Act don't talk. All of this has nothing to do with Satoshi, but with what sound money is.
Gresham law doesn't apply for Bitcoin as it works only in a specfic location with a stong legal tender enforcement. But their is no legal tender on planet earth. Bitcoin is global, and it is the only available option to trade globaly without trust or friction. It will be used for trades, and to build layer 2 and 3 applications. It will be used for what it is, P2P eletronic cash. Hoarding in only one of its use cases and you seem to forget that.
Bitcoin will be used or it has not point and your tail emission makes no sense if nobody uses Bitcoin.
reply
60 sats \ 8 replies \ @jk_14 OP 26 Dec 2022
20 usd for single tx - but: now! Probably most of folks here expected bitcoin price 100k usd till the end of 2021 already. And in such case: 120 usd "only" per single tx to compensate lack of block subsidy. And only rising together with Bitcoin price... :)
Yeah, sure... Gresham law doesn't apply for Bitcoin. Game Theory doesn't apply for Bitcoin.
What else yet doesn't apply... ha-ha
reply
20 sats \ 0 replies \ @Dig 26 Dec 2022
But Gresham’s law DOESNT apply to Bitcoin. It has no face value.
Gresham’s law applies when, say, I have a sovereign silver $1 coin (1 oz, worth $23+) and a paper $1 bill.
reply
0 sats \ 6 replies \ @Louferlou 30 Dec 2022
Gresham law can't be apply to a global currency without a global legal tender, that you like it or not. Without coercion from one big giant worldwide Nation State, Gresham law is meaningless seriously. In that case Bitcoin could become the money of the world, and at least be secured enough by the fee rewards...If you think adoption will stay like it is right now forever, then Bitcoin has indeed failed so moove away from that space dude
reply
0 sats \ 5 replies \ @jk_14 OP 30 Dec 2022
Gresham's law exists strictly due to human nature: let's hoard what is best. Like best money, i.e. Bitcoin.
Your silly claim is like: "human nature can't be applied to human", dude... LOL
You simply understand NOTHING: #114074
view replies
129 sats \ 3 replies \ @orthzar 26 Dec 2022
If tail emission is a good idea, then the hard-fork should be done ASAP. The longer you wait, the more miners, nodes, and users there will be who will resist the not-insignificant change.
Is the delay simply a matter of "we're not quite sure how to implement tail emission"? Why not adopt an existing shitcoin tail emission algorithm?
Or, are tail-emission advocates trying to come up with an algorithm that will convince the largest number of miners/nodes/users to choose the tail-emission-side of a future hard-fork?
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @jk_14 OP 26 Dec 2022
It's not that simple that it is good or bad: it's just necessary
And just the opposite, the waiting for 90% share to understand it well - is long-term process:
"Bitcoin should have had a 0.1% or 1% monetary inflation tax to pay for security" (Peter Todd, 2019)
Monero annual tail emission is set artificially at 0.9%, what is not optimal approach. Bitcoin can set it organically, thus on lowest possible level to preserve already reached level of network security. The proposal above is such kind.
reply
10 sats \ 1 reply \ @jgbtc 26 Dec 2022
So why don't you try to change monero? It may not be perfect but it already has a tail emission so that should be much easier than changing the sacred bitcoin 21M cap.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @jk_14 OP 26 Dec 2022
Monero was/is on the first line of governments' focus and attack (not to mention: lack of L2) Utilising this time and "unawareness" - Lightning Network has the chance to improve its privacy and grow as big as de facto unstopable (see, I'm Bitcoin Maxi :)
reply
268 sats \ 5 replies \ @faithandcredit 25 Dec 2022
In my opnion some people are looking at the block subsidy wrong. Its not meant to secure the network its meant to distribute coins as fairly as possible. When the coins have been distributed the security will come from usage of the network, it will come from the fees. Some people have assumed there will be tonnes of usage and everything is awesome and they can put their entire networth in it and never have to work again and now isntead of adjusting their holdings because they might have second thoughts about their position they want to change the parameters of the protocol and continue coin emission in an attempt to protect their degen position. But they are just being reckless again and should be ignored.
reply
3147 sats \ 3 replies \ @thrown 25 Dec 2022
they want to change the parameters of the protocol and continue coin emission in an attempt to protect their degen position
The degen position is the one that maximizes “number go up” at the expense of the security and fairness of the network.
Now which position is really “degen” here?
reply
60 sats \ 1 reply \ @faithandcredit 25 Dec 2022
scarcity does not create value in itself and niether does creating coins to pay for security. Its the commodity like features that gives value, and you are compromising those with tail emissions hardforks.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @jk_14 OP 25 Dec 2022
delay the halving schedule by single cycle - only if the network security after long 4 years is still degraded (instead of killing it more) if no need to rescue the network security in such situation - I don't know when
reply
166 sats \ 0 replies \ @jk_14 OP 25 Dec 2022
The degen position is the one that maximizes “number go up” at the expense of the security
1k sat, because your comment is perfect :)
Let me add yet:
  • simple solution (easy to understand for Average Joe)
  • no hardcoded value of tail emission (only the circumstances define it)
  • as long as income from transactions compensate cut-off of block subsidy - nothing is changed
  • the network may grow by tiny single ASIC miner every 4 years - and nothing is changed as well
Just the network security oriented and only a safety measure.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @jk_14 OP 25 Dec 2022
the security will come from usage of the network, it will come from the fees
that's great ...and if you really believe in what you wrote above - you wouldn't write it at all as this safety measure would never be triggered - according to your bold claim
reply
31 sats \ 5 replies \ @Dig 26 Dec 2022
Nobody will stop you from creating this pseudobitcoin. It will be one of many.
reply
30 sats \ 4 replies \ @jk_14 OP 26 Dec 2022
If 90% sooner or later will understand it finally: reduced mining + reduced transactions = network security in spiral of death
it will be still real Bitcoin (but fixed on time, fortunately)
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @bangbang_u_r_done 26 Dec 2022
If you are right, put your money where your mouth is, and the market will tell with substantial net gains for you.
If not you will end up with just another fork.
Either way there is no point in the discussion IMO, just build or support what you think is good and the rest will come on its own
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @jk_14 OP 26 Dec 2022
Gresham's law is non-negotiable.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Dig 26 Dec 2022
Gresham’s law doesn’t apply to bitcoin as it doesn’t have a face value.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @jk_14 OP 26 Dec 2022
https://i.redd.it/438h3b6hif221.jpg
"GrEsHaM's LaW dOeSN't AppLy t0 biTCoIN."
even worse: you know that Bitcoin is good money, but you also predict it will be even better with time
reply
10 sats \ 9 replies \ @Brunswick 26 Dec 2022
Tail emission violates the fundamental principals of hard money. This is not what people who bought bitcoin signed up for. Scaring them into your ass-emissions solution to a problem you think the free market can't solve on it's own because of "who will build the roads?" style thinking is just FUD. Either the free market works or it doesn't, and bitcoin is exactly that.
reply
0 sats \ 8 replies \ @jk_14 OP 26 Dec 2022
No free market can solve the obvious conflict against the Gresham's law, regardless if you like it or not. side note: the Gresham's law is a product of free market, in fact...
reply
0 sats \ 7 replies \ @Brunswick 26 Dec 2022
What does Gresham's law have to do with tail emissions? You want to make an inferior coin, therefore everyone will rush to use that because its inferior?
reply
0 sats \ 6 replies \ @jk_14 OP 26 Dec 2022
What does Gresham's law have to do with tail emissions
A lot. Gresham's law in layman's words:
The better money is - the more people will do their best to hoard it. Hoarding means: avoiding of spending. Avoiding of spending will harm transaction volume and liquidity. Clear as crystal.
And bitcoin is better and better money with every halving.
Yes, the idea is to tune inferiority - to keep network security intact. The network security first. From big network security goes Bitcoin value.
Anyway, all the critics scream that transaction fees will be enough to support the big security of Bitcoin. If they would really believe in it - this safety measure even if implemented - will never be triggered, then...
So why they are screaming about fork? Even if this idea is implemented - there won't be any fork, according to their claims :)
reply
10 sats \ 3 replies \ @Brunswick 26 Dec 2022
The principal of bitcoin is freedom. Tax is theft. Why would the free market chose to be taxed? Your assertion is that there 'might' be a problem in the future. I've seen an attempt at a mathematical model that backs up this assertion, but I'm afraid fancy symbols aren't enough to confuse me. As an engineer, I too can read fancy mathematical symbols and can surmise the model makes further assertions that can't be proven. Adding a tax to bitcoin by way of posterior emissions is just shitcoiner trolling.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @jk_14 OP 26 Dec 2022
because tax is theft, as engineer to engineer:
keeping Bitcoin in the middle of obvious edge case, with pathological Friedman's free lunches for stakeholders (i.e. free riders), due to this overtaxing (punish) people which simply want to use Bitcoin, additionally with pure form of prisoner's dilemma here, and with trust to "large" stakeholders, while probably every of them will convince himself he is not really a large one and "let Microstrategy run Antminers" at loss (and burn money) - is pure madness from technical point of view.
Why do you want overtax one type of users (active) and benefit another type of users (passive) - and keep such unhealthy imbalance for the taxation in the system? It's irrational, especially for engineer.
reply
20 sats \ 1 reply \ @Brunswick 26 Dec 2022
You are thinking like a political scientist with a pop-psychology hobby, not an engineer. Society is not something to be engineered, this thinking is how we came to be where we are now; endless cycles of fiat induced destruction. Forcing "balance" by awarding one group an enlightened status for not saving their money over another that wants to accumulate wealth is simply demagoguery. If one person wants to spend their money, and another doesn't, that's called a free market. Punishing one group for saving (or hoarding) because you find it distasteful is a totalitarian edict. You say words like 'let' and 'madness', this is the mark of an armchair dictator. Many of my past friends spoke at length like this, their endless 'they aught to' and 'pass a law' for this and that. I've had quite enough of it. Bitcoin is doing fine without your pull requests. Fork your own version, its simple enough to do, and convince everyone your posterior emissions are for their own good.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @jk_14 OP 26 Dec 2022
Don't expect a bigger security in the system where only a part of users participate in keeping it secure
than
in the system where all users participate in keeping it secure and all is balanced just by free market.
Current long-term security model is simply sh*t - and not the base for such a healthy, well balanced and free market.
reply on another page
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Dig 26 Dec 2022
You clearly learned about Gresham’s law on your own, without a professor or someone knowledgeable enough to give you examples where it applies.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Brunswick 26 Dec 2022
.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @satoshe 26 Dec 2022
Uh… what? How does this achieve tail emission… doesn’t it just delay the end year of 2140 to an unpredictable time?
Hard no
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @jk_14 OP 26 Dec 2022
it doesn't simply: delay it delays only - if the security of the network is still degraded due to previous halving just before the next halving
so, no degradation = no delay
so, this may achieve tail emission or not - and achieve it indirectly and all depends on: if the network security requires it or not
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Louferlou 26 Dec 2022
Tail emission on Bitcoin is a ridiculous idea. If needed it means that Bitcoin adoption hasn't happen, and thus monero will be a fine enough (with tons of others shitcoins) to send value on the net.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @jk_14 OP 26 Dec 2022
Bitcoin this way will have the best because organically set, the lowest possible level of tail emission from all other shitcoins. E.g 0.1% against order of magnitude higher in Monero. The obvious choice what is: the best money here...
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @faithandcredit 25 Dec 2022
bruh
reply