š
Original date posted:2022-06-23
š Original message:On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 01:00:07PM -0600, Keagan McClelland via bitcoin-dev 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. 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. 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. 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.
Demurrage makes protocols like Lightning much more complex, and isn't
compatible with existing implementations. While demurrage could in theory be
implemented in a soft-fork by forcing txs to contain an output with the
demurrage-taxed amount, spending to a pool of future mining fees, I really
don't think it's practical to actually do that.
Anyway, demurrage and inflation have identical economic properties. They're
both a tax on savings. The only difference is the way that tax is implemented.
--
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220623/056ee0b9/attachment.sig>;
Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] /
npub1m2ā¦a2np2
2023-06-07 23:10:07
in reply to nevent1qā¦4f9w
Author Public Key
npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2Published at
2023-06-07 23:10:07Event JSON
{
"id": "0f31e812f4e72b77b1a0253ae921f738a2707649c73491d73156b1e3e3e86057",
"pubkey": "daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa",
"created_at": 1686179407,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"5551b13e7da6b3f09c0d99802a19f9d792bb6230bb9f7b81382a9edb07abfa59",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"77d92f74d951764f600fe3d7d15b107f47b14fe8fdd97808c4dcb5465baefa9b",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"82205f272f995d9be742779a3c19a2ae08522ca14824c3a3b01525fb5459161e"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2022-06-23\nš Original message:On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 01:00:07PM -0600, Keagan McClelland via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e \u003e The PoW security of Bitcoin benefits all Bitcoin users, proportional to\n\u003e the\n\u003e value of BTC they hold; if Bitcoin blocks aren't reliably created the value\n\u003e of\n\u003e *all* BTC goes down. It doesn't make sense for the entire cost of that\n\u003e security\n\u003e to be paid for on a per-tx basis. And there's a high chance paying for it\n\u003e 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\n\u003e means of measuring economic activity is unprecedented and I believe deeply\n\u003e important. I'm sympathetic to the argument that the security of the chain\n\u003e should not be solely the responsibility of transactors. We realize the\n\u003e value of money on receipt, hold *and* spend and it would be appropriate for\n\u003e there to be a balance of fees to that effect. While inflation may be\n\u003e simpler to implement (just chop off the last few halvings), I think it\n\u003e would be superior (on the assumption that such a hodl tax was necessary) to\n\u003e keep the supply fixed and have people's utxo balances decay, at least at\n\u003e the level of the UX.\n\nDemurrage makes protocols like Lightning much more complex, and isn't\ncompatible with existing implementations. While demurrage could in theory be\nimplemented in a soft-fork by forcing txs to contain an output with the\ndemurrage-taxed amount, spending to a pool of future mining fees, I really\ndon't think it's practical to actually do that.\n\nAnyway, demurrage and inflation have identical economic properties. They're\nboth a tax on savings. The only difference is the way that tax is implemented.\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: 488 bytes\nDesc: not available\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220623/056ee0b9/attachment.sig\u003e",
"sig": "7d74e57da661c12b18b4f49e0a3be58292f015dcdb425723351df55520318c0f96bbed35e6c8cd6e935dd8e1b9e38ed55a580fd38d4d76dfcaf6afc632f8e0fc"
}