📅 Original date posted:2014-10-28
📝 Original message:Answering today's concerns with yesterday's facts is dangerous,
especially with bitcoin on a 4 years period. I personally consider all
arguments like "we went through once, and nothing special. So no
disturbance worthy of discussion to expect" baseless.
Also, starting a topic with mentions of "death" is not leading to any
useful discussion.
@Topic starters: don't oversell your topic with that kind of
vocabulary hype. "death by halving", seriously?
@Everybody else: don't focus on the chosen vocabulary, or use it to
discard what might be a relevant discussion topic.
The fact that a topic was brought up many times since a long time,
does not mean it is not relevant. It only means it is a recurring
concern. I read no convincing argument against a significant
disturbance of the mining market to come. The fact that it is known in
advance is no counter argument to me.
Environmental conditions will have changed so much, the next halving
occurence might have nothing to do with the previous one, and it
should be perfectly ok to discuss it instead of putting the whole
thing under the carpet.
What is most important to the discussion to me: the main difference
between the last halving and the one to come is the relative weight of
ideology vs. rationality in miners's motivations. Effectively putting
us closer to the original bitcoin premises (miners fully rational).
Miners were close to being 100% individuals last halving, they are now
largely for-profit companies. This isn't a change we can overlook with
pure maths or with previous experience.
Jeremie DL
2014-10-28 21:36 GMT+01:00 Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 8:17 PM, Ferdinando M. Ametrano
> <ferdinando.ametrano at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 25, 2014 9:19 PM, "Gavin Andresen" <gavinandresen at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > We had a halving, and it was a non-event.
>> > Is there some reason to believe next time will be different?
>>
>> In november 2008 bitcoin was a much younger ecosystem,
>
> Or very old, indeed, if you are using unsigned arithmetic. [...]
>
>> and the halving happened during a quite stable positive price trend
>
> Hardly,
>
> http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/mtgoxUSD#rg60zczsg2012-10-01zeg2012-12-01ztgSzm1g10zm2g25zv
>
>> Moreover, halving is not strictly necessary to respect the spirit of Nakamoto's monetary rule
>
> It isn't, but many people have performed planning around the current
> behaviour. The current behaviour has also not shown itself to be
> problematic (and we've actually experienced its largest effect already
> without incident), and there are arguable benefits like encouraging
> investment in mining infrastructure.
>
> This thread is, in my opinion, a waste of time. It's yet again
> another perennial bikeshedding proposal brought up many times since at
> least 2011, suggesting random changes for
> non-existing(/not-yet-existing) issues.
>
> There is a lot more complexity to the system than the subsidy schedule.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
2014-10-28 21:57 GMT+01:00 Alex Mizrahi <alex.mizrahi at gmail.com>:
>
>>
>> This thread is, in my opinion, a waste of time. It's yet again
>> another perennial bikeshedding proposal brought up many times since at
>> least 2011, suggesting random changes for
>> non-existing(/not-yet-existing) issues.
>>
>> There is a lot more complexity to the system than the subsidy schedule.
>
>
> Well, the main question is what makes Bitcoin secure.
> It is secured by proofs of work which are produced by miners.
> Miners have economic incentives to play by the rules; in simple terms, that
> is more profitable than performing attacks.
>
> So the question is, why and when it works? It would be nice to know the
> boundaries, no?
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
Jérémie Dubois-Lacoste [ARCHIVE] /
npub1j7…vmlg6
2023-06-07 15:27:00
in reply to nevent1q…quew
Author Public Key
npub1j7cm657crpk3y4jkvm7hk0le3c8c4x8yuqflk5dvzuyxn8k845lsfvmlg6Seen on
wss://relay.noswhere.comPublished at
2023-06-07 15:27:00Event JSON
{
"id": "7994ff4ef32d78d6b96275d898ccb6db6148e8e3b78356fb667b1ca213bd07f9",
"pubkey": "97b1bd53d8186d12565666fd7b3ff98e0f8a98e4e013fb51ac1708699ec7ad3f",
"created_at": 1686151620,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"6751924d735e025f23896088a0634fe93532573f685706f0d3a3b07c6111d15f",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"e09371816033e10d4bacd96bd28dd4a1193623182893070d07b4bae8dc9d6f8f",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"83939e4391e74ab1f02f783131a30a24db681188b72b90da8bce3dcaa763c8b4"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2014-10-28\n📝 Original message:Answering today's concerns with yesterday's facts is dangerous,\nespecially with bitcoin on a 4 years period. I personally consider all\narguments like \"we went through once, and nothing special. So no\ndisturbance worthy of discussion to expect\" baseless.\nAlso, starting a topic with mentions of \"death\" is not leading to any\nuseful discussion.\n\n@Topic starters: don't oversell your topic with that kind of\nvocabulary hype. \"death by halving\", seriously?\n@Everybody else: don't focus on the chosen vocabulary, or use it to\ndiscard what might be a relevant discussion topic.\n\nThe fact that a topic was brought up many times since a long time,\ndoes not mean it is not relevant. It only means it is a recurring\nconcern. I read no convincing argument against a significant\ndisturbance of the mining market to come. The fact that it is known in\nadvance is no counter argument to me.\nEnvironmental conditions will have changed so much, the next halving\noccurence might have nothing to do with the previous one, and it\nshould be perfectly ok to discuss it instead of putting the whole\nthing under the carpet.\n\nWhat is most important to the discussion to me: the main difference\nbetween the last halving and the one to come is the relative weight of\nideology vs. rationality in miners's motivations. Effectively putting\nus closer to the original bitcoin premises (miners fully rational).\nMiners were close to being 100% individuals last halving, they are now\nlargely for-profit companies. This isn't a change we can overlook with\npure maths or with previous experience.\n\n\nJeremie DL\n\n\n\n\n\n2014-10-28 21:36 GMT+01:00 Gregory Maxwell \u003cgmaxwell at gmail.com\u003e:\n\u003e On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 8:17 PM, Ferdinando M. Ametrano\n\u003e \u003cferdinando.ametrano at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e On Oct 25, 2014 9:19 PM, \"Gavin Andresen\" \u003cgavinandresen at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e \u003e We had a halving, and it was a non-event.\n\u003e\u003e \u003e Is there some reason to believe next time will be different?\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e In november 2008 bitcoin was a much younger ecosystem,\n\u003e\n\u003e Or very old, indeed, if you are using unsigned arithmetic. [...]\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e and the halving happened during a quite stable positive price trend\n\u003e\n\u003e Hardly,\n\u003e\n\u003e http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/mtgoxUSD#rg60zczsg2012-10-01zeg2012-12-01ztgSzm1g10zm2g25zv\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Moreover, halving is not strictly necessary to respect the spirit of Nakamoto's monetary rule\n\u003e\n\u003e It isn't, but many people have performed planning around the current\n\u003e behaviour. The current behaviour has also not shown itself to be\n\u003e problematic (and we've actually experienced its largest effect already\n\u003e without incident), and there are arguable benefits like encouraging\n\u003e investment in mining infrastructure.\n\u003e\n\u003e This thread is, in my opinion, a waste of time. It's yet again\n\u003e another perennial bikeshedding proposal brought up many times since at\n\u003e least 2011, suggesting random changes for\n\u003e non-existing(/not-yet-existing) issues.\n\u003e\n\u003e There is a lot more complexity to the system than the subsidy schedule.\n\u003e\n\u003e ------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e Bitcoin-development mailing list\n\u003e Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\n\u003e https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development\n\n2014-10-28 21:57 GMT+01:00 Alex Mizrahi \u003calex.mizrahi at gmail.com\u003e:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e This thread is, in my opinion, a waste of time. It's yet again\n\u003e\u003e another perennial bikeshedding proposal brought up many times since at\n\u003e\u003e least 2011, suggesting random changes for\n\u003e\u003e non-existing(/not-yet-existing) issues.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e There is a lot more complexity to the system than the subsidy schedule.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Well, the main question is what makes Bitcoin secure.\n\u003e It is secured by proofs of work which are produced by miners.\n\u003e Miners have economic incentives to play by the rules; in simple terms, that\n\u003e is more profitable than performing attacks.\n\u003e\n\u003e So the question is, why and when it works? It would be nice to know the\n\u003e boundaries, no?\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e ------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e Bitcoin-development mailing list\n\u003e Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\n\u003e https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development\n\u003e",
"sig": "ff8c7de36684ef6053ff4783fdc54627dc04c78475170aadbf9d7360516f0f6cd99ddc90323418f0958eb207e5d64bffd037241734b7556a0cba26b552a04394"
}