📅 Original date posted:2022-06-21
📝 Original message:> On Jun 21, 2022, at 12:28, Keagan McClelland via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>
> > The PoW security of Bitcoin benefits all Bitcoin users, proportional to the
> value of BTC they hold; if Bitcoin blocks aren't reliably created the value of
> *all* BTC goes down. It doesn't make sense for the entire cost of that security
> to be paid for on a per-tx basis.
Actually it does. People who transact are realizing the benefit of money - the avoidance of barter costs. Those who never transact, never realize any benefit.
> And there's a high chance paying for it on a
> per-tx basis won't work anyway due to lack of consistent demand.
>
> FWIW I prefer the demurrage route. Having something with finite supply as a means of measuring economic activity is unprecedented and I believe deeply important. I'm sympathetic to the argument that the security of the chain should not be solely the responsibility of transactors.
Chain security - censorship resistance (as opposed to individual double-spend security), is entirely dependent upon tx fees.
> We realize the value of money on receipt, hold *and* spend and it would be appropriate for there to be a balance of fees to that effect.
There is zero point in saving if you never spend. You can instead just burn your coin.
> While inflation may be simpler to implement (just chop off the last few halvings), I think it would be superior (on the assumption that such a hodl tax was necessary) to keep the supply fixed and have people's utxo balances decay, at least at the level of the UX.
A hoard decays naturally due to opportunity cost. Investing it requires transaction to invest, and transaction to earn (profit), and transaction to return it (interest).
> But also none of this should be reasons we don't improve Bitcoin's value (and therefore demand)
Demand is the only reason we save, and eventually transacting is the only motivation for saving. No transacting implies no demand - and no security.
e
> Keagan
>
>> On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 2:42 AM Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 19, 2022 at 2:04 PM Manuel Costa via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>> if we start seeing issues with block rewards being too low to maintain acceptable security, we're going to have multiple solutions being implemented for it, and definitely a hard fork to indefinitely maintain some degree of block subsidy
>>
>> if we failed to first try increasing block demand with advanced transaction support, it would seem like we were just throwing money and growth away to support one narrative (simplicty of function), while destroying another (finite supply)
>>
>> if stuff like covenant support and mweb gets us higher fees, with stuff like on-chain mixing protocols, vaults, and higher utility, it might be more than enough to sustain bitcoin on fees alone forever
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220621/758f2749/attachment.html>;
Eric Voskuil [ARCHIVE] /
npub1sg…ppx3c
2023-06-07 23:10:07
in reply to nevent1q…w28h
Author Public Key
npub1sgs97fe0n9wehe6zw7drcxdz4cy9yt9pfqjv8gasz5jlk4zezc0quppx3cPublished at
2023-06-07 23:10:07Event JSON
{
"id": "77d92f74d951764f600fe3d7d15b107f47b14fe8fdd97808c4dcb5465baefa9b",
"pubkey": "82205f272f995d9be742779a3c19a2ae08522ca14824c3a3b01525fb5459161e",
"created_at": 1686179407,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"5551b13e7da6b3f09c0d99802a19f9d792bb6230bb9f7b81382a9edb07abfa59",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"298e2ef023fb7ba36054d582142a955db5351ddc14def857516bb294cbcdae4f",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"4aa66c838f2cc55afbd46335fb2520507e2030601f773b28b96b76ec60a2f489"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2022-06-21\n📝 Original message:\u003e On Jun 21, 2022, at 12:28, Keagan McClelland via bitcoin-dev \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \u003e The PoW security of Bitcoin benefits all Bitcoin users, proportional to the\n\u003e value of BTC they hold; if Bitcoin blocks aren't reliably created the value of\n\u003e *all* BTC goes down. It doesn't make sense for the entire cost of that security\n\u003e to be paid for on a per-tx basis.\n\nActually it does. People who transact are realizing the benefit of money - the avoidance of barter costs. Those who never transact, never realize any benefit.\n\n\u003e And there's a high chance paying for it on a\n\u003e per-tx basis won't work anyway due to lack of consistent demand.\n\u003e \n\u003e FWIW I prefer the demurrage route. Having something with finite supply as a means of measuring economic activity is unprecedented and I believe deeply important. I'm sympathetic to the argument that the security of the chain should not be solely the responsibility of transactors.\n\nChain security - censorship resistance (as opposed to individual double-spend security), is entirely dependent upon tx fees.\n\n\u003e We realize the value of money on receipt, hold *and* spend and it would be appropriate for there to be a balance of fees to that effect.\n\nThere is zero point in saving if you never spend. You can instead just burn your coin.\n\n\u003e While inflation may be simpler to implement (just chop off the last few halvings), I think it would be superior (on the assumption that such a hodl tax was necessary) to keep the supply fixed and have people's utxo balances decay, at least at the level of the UX.\n\nA hoard decays naturally due to opportunity cost. Investing it requires transaction to invest, and transaction to earn (profit), and transaction to return it (interest).\n\n\u003e But also none of this should be reasons we don't improve Bitcoin's value (and therefore demand)\n\nDemand is the only reason we save, and eventually transacting is the only motivation for saving. No transacting implies no demand - and no security.\n\ne\n\n\u003e Keagan\n\u003e \n\u003e\u003e On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 2:42 AM Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e On Sun, Jun 19, 2022 at 2:04 PM Manuel Costa via bitcoin-dev \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e if we start seeing issues with block rewards being too low to maintain acceptable security, we're going to have multiple solutions being implemented for it, and definitely a hard fork to indefinitely maintain some degree of block subsidy\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e if we failed to first try increasing block demand with advanced transaction support, it would seem like we were just throwing money and growth away to support one narrative (simplicty of function), while destroying another (finite supply) \n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e if stuff like covenant support and mweb gets us higher fees, with stuff like on-chain mixing protocols, vaults, and higher utility, it might be more than enough to sustain bitcoin on fees alone forever\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220621/758f2749/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "7cd43f7a215d6e8475e4ebdc1f619da85806077aeba363f00227d48dbbb23b877dfaa7449d395f5db1c771d3e7e1fd755049e6783ea661533651a11ac3c5462b"
}