š
Original date posted:2022-07-07
š Original message:On Thu, Jul 07, 2022 at 02:24:39PM +0100, John Carvalho via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Billy,
>
> Proof of work and the difficulty adjustment function solve literally
> everything you are talking about already.
Unfortunately you are quite wrong: the difficulty adjustment function merely
adjusts for changes in the amount of observable, non-51%-attacking, hashing
power. In the event of a chain split, the difficulty adjustment function does
nothing; against a 51% attacker, the difficulty adjustment does nothing;
against a censor, the difficulty adjustment does nothing.
We should not imbue real technology with magical qualities.
> Bitcoin does not need active economic governanance by devs or meddlers.
Yes, active governance would definitely be an exploitable mechanism. On the
other hand, the status quo of the block reward eventually going away entirely
is obviously a risky state change too.
> > > There is also zero agreement on how much security would constitute such
> > an optimum.
> >
> > This is really step 1. We need to generate consensus on this long before
> > the block subsidy becomes too small. Probably in the next 10-15 years. I
> > wrote a paper
The fact of the matter is that the present amount of security is about 1.7% of
the total coin supply/year, and Bitcoin seems to be working fine. 1.7% is also
already an amount low enough that it's much smaller than economic volatility.
Obviously 0% is too small.
There's zero reason to stress about finding an "optimal" amount. An amount low
enough to be easily affordable, but non-zero, is fine. 1% would be fine; 0.5%
would probably be fine; 0.1% would probably be fine.
Over a lifetime - 75 years - 0.5% yearly inflation works out to be a 31% tax on
savings; 0.1% works out to be 7.2%
These are all amounts that are likely to be dwarfed by economic shifts.
--
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/20220707/22617f6b/attachment.sig>;
Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] /
npub1m2ā¦a2np2
2023-06-07 23:11:01
in reply to nevent1qā¦82m7
Author Public Key
npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2Seen on
wss://relay.noswhere.comPublished at
2023-06-07 23:11:01Event JSON
{
"id": "9fcdfe7f5675deb3550a406a2bd2b23cfaf457d74e0b5773f5b962b97e32ef35",
"pubkey": "daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa",
"created_at": 1686179461,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"7b48b1d81caa6040c3accea765079d236c2aa24c40321303ab071f7798b24c6d",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"84ae1feb30a24102a10a4530a21e5e073ae955adf76d5ed3ffe19631cbbcd966",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"02283afe5d7e6355ba7a0c2f5283e3149f651dab319cfb553d46a1d180234ed5"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2022-07-07\nš Original message:On Thu, Jul 07, 2022 at 02:24:39PM +0100, John Carvalho via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e Billy,\n\u003e \n\u003e Proof of work and the difficulty adjustment function solve literally\n\u003e everything you are talking about already.\n\nUnfortunately you are quite wrong: the difficulty adjustment function merely\nadjusts for changes in the amount of observable, non-51%-attacking, hashing\npower. In the event of a chain split, the difficulty adjustment function does\nnothing; against a 51% attacker, the difficulty adjustment does nothing;\nagainst a censor, the difficulty adjustment does nothing.\n\nWe should not imbue real technology with magical qualities.\n\n\u003e Bitcoin does not need active economic governanance by devs or meddlers.\n\nYes, active governance would definitely be an exploitable mechanism. On the\nother hand, the status quo of the block reward eventually going away entirely\nis obviously a risky state change too.\n\n\u003e \u003e \u003e There is also zero agreement on how much security would constitute such\n\u003e \u003e an optimum.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e This is really step 1. We need to generate consensus on this long before\n\u003e \u003e the block subsidy becomes too small. Probably in the next 10-15 years. I\n\u003e \u003e wrote a paper\n\nThe fact of the matter is that the present amount of security is about 1.7% of\nthe total coin supply/year, and Bitcoin seems to be working fine. 1.7% is also\nalready an amount low enough that it's much smaller than economic volatility.\n\nObviously 0% is too small.\n\nThere's zero reason to stress about finding an \"optimal\" amount. An amount low\nenough to be easily affordable, but non-zero, is fine. 1% would be fine; 0.5%\nwould probably be fine; 0.1% would probably be fine.\n\nOver a lifetime - 75 years - 0.5% yearly inflation works out to be a 31% tax on\nsavings; 0.1% works out to be 7.2%\n\nThese are all amounts that are likely to be dwarfed by economic shifts.\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/20220707/22617f6b/attachment.sig\u003e",
"sig": "efa1a379453999c1ba2fadffba64b1c0b8a1d936d30d5861b5d5e07bbd6122b3144f7b39d4a42599b7dc554dd632cd597d9679e7914abcdfb17284702b13a1f0"
}