📅 Original date posted:2022-07-07
📝 Original message:On Thu, Jul 07, 2022 at 10:12:41AM -0400, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> We should not imbue real technology with magical qualities.
That's much more fun if you invert it, and take it as a mission
statement. Advance technology sufficiently!
> 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.
For comparison, 0.1% of 21M BTC per annum is 0.4 BTC per block, which
is about 50sat/vb if blocks are 800kvB on average. Doing that purely
with fees seems within the ballpark of feasibility to me.
50sat/vb for a 200vb tx (roughly the size of a 2-in, 2-out p2wpkh/p2tr
tx) is $2 at $20k/BTC, $10 at $100k/BTC, $100 at $1M/BTC etc.
If the current block reward of ~1.7% pa of 19M at a price of $20k funds
the current level of mining activity, then you'd expect a similar level
of mining activity as today with reward at 0.1% pa of 21M at a price
of ~$310k.
Going by the halving schedule, the block subsidy alone will remain above
0.1% of supply until we hit the 0.39 BTC/block regime, in 2036, at which
point it drops to ~0.0986% annualised. (I guess you could extend that by
four years if you're willing to assume more than 1.5% of bitcoin supply
has been permanently lost)
Cheers,
aj
Anthony Towns [ARCHIVE] /
npub17r…x9l2h
2023-06-07 23:11:08
in reply to nevent1q…vc6y
Author Public Key
npub17rld56k4365lfphyd8u8kwuejey5xcazdxptserx03wc4jc9g24stx9l2hPublished at
2023-06-07 23:11:08Event JSON
{
"id": "cf18157071e06c93a8705844c7bd3d83d3fb21f78efbee995822476c1ac7fba9",
"pubkey": "f0feda6ad58ea9f486e469f87b3b9996494363a26982b864667c5d8acb0542ab",
"created_at": 1686179468,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"7b48b1d81caa6040c3accea765079d236c2aa24c40321303ab071f7798b24c6d",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"6dd9ef8768d1306fae33bad536b4182895f4c9e78711cbfd167ea11d65217e6a",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"3030ec2d70259fdd55ba8e063740c139c3daaa618f86e3fae34cebcb73c742ba"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2022-07-07\n📝 Original message:On Thu, Jul 07, 2022 at 10:12:41AM -0400, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e We should not imbue real technology with magical qualities.\n\nThat's much more fun if you invert it, and take it as a mission\nstatement. Advance technology sufficiently!\n\n\u003e The fact of the matter is that the present amount of security is about 1.7% of\n\u003e the total coin supply/year, and Bitcoin seems to be working fine. 1.7% is also\n\u003e already an amount low enough that it's much smaller than economic volatility.\n\u003e \n\u003e Obviously 0% is too small.\n\u003e \n\u003e There's zero reason to stress about finding an \"optimal\" amount. An amount low\n\u003e enough to be easily affordable, but non-zero, is fine. 1% would be fine; 0.5%\n\u003e would probably be fine; 0.1% would probably be fine.\n\nFor comparison, 0.1% of 21M BTC per annum is 0.4 BTC per block, which\nis about 50sat/vb if blocks are 800kvB on average. Doing that purely\nwith fees seems within the ballpark of feasibility to me.\n\n50sat/vb for a 200vb tx (roughly the size of a 2-in, 2-out p2wpkh/p2tr\ntx) is $2 at $20k/BTC, $10 at $100k/BTC, $100 at $1M/BTC etc.\n\nIf the current block reward of ~1.7% pa of 19M at a price of $20k funds\nthe current level of mining activity, then you'd expect a similar level\nof mining activity as today with reward at 0.1% pa of 21M at a price\nof ~$310k.\n\nGoing by the halving schedule, the block subsidy alone will remain above\n0.1% of supply until we hit the 0.39 BTC/block regime, in 2036, at which\npoint it drops to ~0.0986% annualised. (I guess you could extend that by\nfour years if you're willing to assume more than 1.5% of bitcoin supply\nhas been permanently lost)\n\nCheers,\naj",
"sig": "a9297dbaef055e83eb98c10be753de13233496450524d324f42aca13f3c9d514e1877d9e406a2590fd0c488513ddadad2541bc7f2f52b67fd5c1d294bdbd1548"
}