📅 Original date posted:2016-03-09
📝 Original message:On 3/9/2016 3:18 PM, Henning Kopp via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > However, I think it could actually increase
> > confidence in the system if the community is able to demonstrate a good
> > process for making such decisions, and show that we can separate the
> > meaningful underlying principles, such as the coin limit and overall
> > inflation rate, from what is more akin to an implementation detail, as I
> > consider the large-step reward reduction to be.
>
> I do not think that a line can be drawn here. As far as I understood,
> you think that the coin limit is a meaningful underlying principle
> which should not be touched, whereas the halving of mining rewards is
> an implementation detail. The two are very closely tied together and
> changes to both of them would result in a hardfork, if I am not
> mistaken.
I believe that you are mistaken.
The two are almost-completely unrelated, and (as Dr. Back has been
pointing out for a very long time now) the halving of mining rewards can
be modified with a soft fork.
http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/mining-heart-attack/#smooth-the-disinflation-out
Paul Sztorc [ARCHIVE] /
npub10t…w9uu9
2023-06-07 17:49:38
in reply to nevent1q…pp7h
Author Public Key
npub10tqt6wdc2neye0cxwyphtre6n5uccgur94khtqjdry9wxhrvywlq6w9uu9Published at
2023-06-07 17:49:38Event JSON
{
"id": "c608dc5b513000453084013b4f262ef4928f8e974c94230f9782e3d40a076a47",
"pubkey": "7ac0bd39b854f24cbf067103758f3a9d398c23832d6d75824d190ae35c6c23be",
"created_at": 1686160178,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"c19c64d0621f34bc049688bdbd88cd48f1e91c193354087b0b32d42fce855169",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"84ccf54c6964fcdb4b6cd9ae6959aa234a47c1992b85dd2cfd0a410f568ca1fb",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"82205f272f995d9be742779a3c19a2ae08522ca14824c3a3b01525fb5459161e"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2016-03-09\n📝 Original message:On 3/9/2016 3:18 PM, Henning Kopp via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e Hi,\n\u003e\n\u003e \u003e However, I think it could actually increase\n\u003e \u003e confidence in the system if the community is able to demonstrate a good\n\u003e \u003e process for making such decisions, and show that we can separate the\n\u003e \u003e meaningful underlying principles, such as the coin limit and overall\n\u003e \u003e inflation rate, from what is more akin to an implementation detail, as I\n\u003e \u003e consider the large-step reward reduction to be.\n\u003e\n\u003e I do not think that a line can be drawn here. As far as I understood,\n\u003e you think that the coin limit is a meaningful underlying principle\n\u003e which should not be touched, whereas the halving of mining rewards is\n\u003e an implementation detail. The two are very closely tied together and\n\u003e changes to both of them would result in a hardfork, if I am not\n\u003e mistaken.\n\nI believe that you are mistaken.\n\nThe two are almost-completely unrelated, and (as Dr. Back has been\npointing out for a very long time now) the halving of mining rewards can\nbe modified with a soft fork.\n\nhttp://www.truthcoin.info/blog/mining-heart-attack/#smooth-the-disinflation-out",
"sig": "bacda605c03b4d7641b7fa1ed8e022df37fcd77519c7a5e988e02c6e47ccad15c2ec5ff59574b1b2188fbbc7fa3d079abb7f04feb4f2fa6d3ad77435d167cb26"
}