pull down to refresh
31 sats \ 5 replies \ @nerd2ninja 9 May 2023 \ parent \ on: Is situation you hate - a perfect solution to block subsidy issue? [bitcoin-dev] bitcoin
Brother, I pulled the number 100 out of the blue. You want to go hard on real data? Here's the hard real data:
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/67158/what-are-channel-factories-and-how-do-they-work
This post gives you pre signature aggregation byte sizes for a channel factory transaction.
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/106520/is-bitcoin-lightning-still-not-scalable
This post gives you a much more verbose explanation of the softforks we need (signature aggregation which we have now with Taproot but also still to come, SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUT (BIP 118) which allows for the development of Eltoo channels. Of specific interest, is an answer from Rene Pickhardt:
"we can create a single Bitcoin tx that is n - of - n multisig which enables us to do multiparty channels with n participants in 1 transaction. So if you take n=40 we can onboard 8bn people in 1 year. If you choose n=480 we can do it in 1 month"
but what if there isn't so many users - and price will not double every 4 years indefinitely, what is rather obvious
so you land with negligible block subsidy and not enough fees to compensate it
better safe than sorry, some are used to say
reply
What is the hash rate the Bitcoin network actually needs to remain secure? Is the Bitcoin network still secure with half of its current hash rate? Does price need to double? Do miners need the current subsidy's worth of reward translated to dollars?
Those are the other questions, I have not seen any analysis of.
reply
If half of current network hashrate would drop, i.e. if current security level is half of some security from the past - you can't preach about any Store-of-Value feature - which is one of most (if not most) important Bitcoin feature and as such advertised...
If you really care about SoV - you can't accept network security regressions. Period.
Delay of halving only in case of 4 years long network difficulty regression situation - is free market in its finest, and if not triggered till A.D. 2140 - it means: no hard fork
reply
You don't understand, I want the verbose academic research paper. Peter Todd in his article about tail emissions, he linked "On the Instability of Bitcoin Without the Block Reward" It was an interesting read which mostly was around miners being incentivized to mine previous blocks rather than build a new one and I came from that thinking "Well, all that means is that you'd need to wait 6 blocks instead of 1 probably". That's the level of academic research I'm trying to look for with this. Is constant growth of hash rate (at rates higher than the productivity curve or the innovation of faster computers) really necessary for Bitcoin to be secure? What is the real academic analysis. The best theory, though still much less academic than I'd like, is Jason Lowry's Hash War paper in which the hash rate increase is independent of block rewards and rather driven by international warfare. Countries securing their financial position from other countries trying to disrupt it with a reorg.
reply
Yes, some academic research paper on this topic would be always interesting to read...
There is also so called academic discussion - where two sides have different view on given matter and sometimes it requires a time to be verified by the reality.
I only want to say from my almost 50yo experience (academic, too) - network hashrate can be more-less constant or can be slightly increasing (both options are "good for Bitcoin") but we should definitely try to avoid network security regression. That's all.
reply