š
Original date posted:2022-07-10
š Original message:On Sun, Jul 10, 2022 at 02:17:36PM +0000, alicexbt via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> 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 majority coalition of miner ever decides to censor particular transactions without 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.
What exactly would the benefit be of going through all the political headache
of a soft fork for what I assume you are thinking would be an insignificant
change in total miner revenue?
Or do you think total transaction fees at that point would be less than
0.01BTC?
--
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220710/c4acd405/attachment.sig>;
Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] /
npub1m2ā¦a2np2
2023-06-07 23:11:28
in reply to nevent1qā¦65hn
Author Public Key
npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2Published at
2023-06-07 23:11:28Event JSON
{
"id": "a26305cd67134a1fe24feb944bb38f8d5ff25fc3513d2504a445f2efdbbcfa81",
"pubkey": "daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa",
"created_at": 1686179488,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"58ba5412c6c2b5602710ac2f4e1819c2f92facaa3c9fa557b2ad25c78b5dd662",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"4b5dac45de968571ba4a3a9b981b47ba37deebcc46fe8ffda8d2cfd6cdbdb6e1",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"745e2723e72d7ded3f0dd293d710b706cd302ab8476983c292d4bdb7f9c5d366"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2022-07-10\nš Original message:On Sun, Jul 10, 2022 at 02:17:36PM +0000, alicexbt via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e Hi ZmnSCPxj,\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \u003e 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 majority coalition of miner ever decides to censor particular transactions without community consensus.\n\u003e \u003e Fortunately forcing the block subsidy to 0 is a softfork and thus easier to deploy.\n\u003e \n\u003e `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.\n\nWhat exactly would the benefit be of going through all the political headache\nof a soft fork for what I assume you are thinking would be an insignificant\nchange in total miner revenue?\n\nOr do you think total transaction fees at that point would be less than\n0.01BTC?\n\n-- \nhttps://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 833 bytes\nDesc: not available\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220710/c4acd405/attachment.sig\u003e",
"sig": "0e7cc7ba9dbc8289c8ad1555c28a9d5ab41b6cb4fda7ed4612fdcec0fd09c86fe83f6a43044b1d756f4753c76305cc73ea1885d17eaab5684a1e2818c057aaac"
}