📅 Original date posted:2022-07-09
📝 Original message:To clarify, price inflation is not caused by market production. Attributing the observed lack of inflation (eg fee %) to loss is an assumed relation.
Even if the amount of loss was known (which it is not), there remains an assumption in the correlation of non-lost coins to price. Demand determines price, not the amount of something in existence, hence the folly of S2F (1/monetary-inflation).
e
> On Jul 9, 2022, at 08:15, Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 09, 2022 at 07:26:22AM -0700, Eric Voskuil wrote:
>>> Due to lost coins, a tail emission/fixed reward actually results in a stable money supply. Not an (monetarily) inflationary supply.
>>
>> This observation is not a proof of lost coins, that is an assumption.
>
> To be clear, are you claiming that there is no proof that coins are lost?
>
> --
> https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220709/ea261b14/attachment.obj>;
Eric Voskuil [ARCHIVE] /
npub1sg…ppx3c
2023-06-07 23:11:24
in reply to nevent1q…nt7m
Author Public Key
npub1sgs97fe0n9wehe6zw7drcxdz4cy9yt9pfqjv8gasz5jlk4zezc0quppx3cPublished at
2023-06-07 23:11:24Event JSON
{
"id": "b87d4d1f3249a1527bb967ec7096fd74a04ec637d5d39391cf607e465eff9239",
"pubkey": "82205f272f995d9be742779a3c19a2ae08522ca14824c3a3b01525fb5459161e",
"created_at": 1686179484,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"58ba5412c6c2b5602710ac2f4e1819c2f92facaa3c9fa557b2ad25c78b5dd662",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"f61d596679615573781959c697f27f49f2ebd8f353edbb6fc49446a16ef7a0d8",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2022-07-09\n📝 Original message:To clarify, price inflation is not caused by market production. Attributing the observed lack of inflation (eg fee %) to loss is an assumed relation.\n\nEven if the amount of loss was known (which it is not), there remains an assumption in the correlation of non-lost coins to price. Demand determines price, not the amount of something in existence, hence the folly of S2F (1/monetary-inflation).\n\ne\n\n\u003e On Jul 9, 2022, at 08:15, Peter Todd \u003cpete at petertodd.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e On Sat, Jul 09, 2022 at 07:26:22AM -0700, Eric Voskuil wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Due to lost coins, a tail emission/fixed reward actually results in a stable money supply. Not an (monetarily) inflationary supply.\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e This observation is not a proof of lost coins, that is an assumption.\n\u003e \n\u003e To be clear, are you claiming that there is no proof that coins are lost?\n\u003e \n\u003e -- \n\u003e https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/octet-stream\nSize: 833 bytes\nDesc: not available\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220709/ea261b14/attachment.obj\u003e",
"sig": "08584a30e656a7b95ab88cdc4db2c5b1eec5a7bef51d7f2b391c9ba3665b92da4088f6f39a9380314733f02ffd82d9c72c95d3da59bd1817ade8246a614b56d2"
}