📅 Original date posted:2022-07-03
📝 Original message:Bitcoin's finite supply is the main argument for people investing in it,
the whole narrative around bitcoin is based on its finite supply. While it
has its flaws and basically condemns bitcoin to be only used as a store of
value (and not as a currency), I don't think it's worth questioning it at
this point.
Just my 2 sats.
Giuseppe.
On Sun, Jul 3, 2022, 11:44 AM Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 12:44:11PM +0200, Kate Salazar via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
> > > On an idealistic level, I agree with Keagan that it would make sense to
> > > have "a balance of fees to that effect". I think doing that would be
> > > technically/economically optimal. However, I think there is an enormous
> > > benefit to having a cultural aversion to monetary inflation and the
> > > consequences of convincing the bitcoin community that inflation is ok
> could
> > > have unintended negative consequences (not to mention how difficult
> > > convincing the community would be in the first place). There's also the
> > > economic distortion that inflation causes that has a negative effect
> which
> > > should also be considered. The idea of decaying utxo value is
> interesting
> > > to consider, but it would not solve the economic distortion that
> > > monetary inflation causes, because that distortion is a result of
> monetary
> > > devaluation (which decaying utxos would be a form of). Then again,
> maybe in
> > > this case the distortion of inflation would actually be a correction -
> > > correcting for the externality of benefit received by holders. I'm
> > > stream-of-consciousnessing a bit, but anyways, I suspect its not worth
> the
> > > trouble to perfect the distribution of bitcoin blockchain security
> costs to
> > > include holders. Tho, if I were to go back in time and influence how
> > > bitcoin was designed, I might advocate for it.
> > >
> >
> > Pool operators are free to request larger fees from older utxos, or from
> > all utxos, or from newer utxos, at their judgement, looking at the
> > blockspace demand census and at what the other pool operators are doing.
> > This is not consensus, it's policy. It's not a technology problem, it's
> > solved above in the social layer.
>
> If pool operators can easily collude like you are proposing, we have a
> serious
> problem with pool centralization.
>
> What you would actually expect in a healthy Bitcoin ecosystem is for some
> pool
> operators to defect, and them winding up mining those transactions for
> market-based fees, eventually forcing the pool operators who are trying to
> charge a discriminatory premium to give up.
>
> --
> https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220703/5934b536/attachment-0001.html>;
Giuseppe B [ARCHIVE] /
npub1sp…2z75w
2023-06-07 23:10:54
in reply to nevent1q…ymds
Author Public Key
npub1spdrln2clr763n86lhsx7g9hpu0w5cv9hasv4amyyqdde96r7h8s72z75wPublished at
2023-06-07 23:10:54Event JSON
{
"id": "ea623963ecaf97c0c6f5a7681c8e94bd713812bbc5905761442cf153c2d5204c",
"pubkey": "805a3fcd58f8fda8ccfafde06f20b70f1eea6185bf60caf764201adc9743f5cf",
"created_at": 1686179454,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"7b48b1d81caa6040c3accea765079d236c2aa24c40321303ab071f7798b24c6d",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"1643f764aa2899750a1415b024219206b3fc2bbad0c1af3c1a4bdf353da20139",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2022-07-03\n📝 Original message:Bitcoin's finite supply is the main argument for people investing in it,\nthe whole narrative around bitcoin is based on its finite supply. While it\nhas its flaws and basically condemns bitcoin to be only used as a store of\nvalue (and not as a currency), I don't think it's worth questioning it at\nthis point.\n\nJust my 2 sats.\n\nGiuseppe.\n\nOn Sun, Jul 3, 2022, 11:44 AM Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 12:44:11PM +0200, Kate Salazar via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e \u003e On an idealistic level, I agree with Keagan that it would make sense to\n\u003e \u003e \u003e have \"a balance of fees to that effect\". I think doing that would be\n\u003e \u003e \u003e technically/economically optimal. However, I think there is an enormous\n\u003e \u003e \u003e benefit to having a cultural aversion to monetary inflation and the\n\u003e \u003e \u003e consequences of convincing the bitcoin community that inflation is ok\n\u003e could\n\u003e \u003e \u003e have unintended negative consequences (not to mention how difficult\n\u003e \u003e \u003e convincing the community would be in the first place). There's also the\n\u003e \u003e \u003e economic distortion that inflation causes that has a negative effect\n\u003e which\n\u003e \u003e \u003e should also be considered. The idea of decaying utxo value is\n\u003e interesting\n\u003e \u003e \u003e to consider, but it would not solve the economic distortion that\n\u003e \u003e \u003e monetary inflation causes, because that distortion is a result of\n\u003e monetary\n\u003e \u003e \u003e devaluation (which decaying utxos would be a form of). Then again,\n\u003e maybe in\n\u003e \u003e \u003e this case the distortion of inflation would actually be a correction -\n\u003e \u003e \u003e correcting for the externality of benefit received by holders. I'm\n\u003e \u003e \u003e stream-of-consciousnessing a bit, but anyways, I suspect its not worth\n\u003e the\n\u003e \u003e \u003e trouble to perfect the distribution of bitcoin blockchain security\n\u003e costs to\n\u003e \u003e \u003e include holders. Tho, if I were to go back in time and influence how\n\u003e \u003e \u003e bitcoin was designed, I might advocate for it.\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e Pool operators are free to request larger fees from older utxos, or from\n\u003e \u003e all utxos, or from newer utxos, at their judgement, looking at the\n\u003e \u003e blockspace demand census and at what the other pool operators are doing.\n\u003e \u003e This is not consensus, it's policy. It's not a technology problem, it's\n\u003e \u003e solved above in the social layer.\n\u003e\n\u003e If pool operators can easily collude like you are proposing, we have a\n\u003e serious\n\u003e problem with pool centralization.\n\u003e\n\u003e What you would actually expect in a healthy Bitcoin ecosystem is for some\n\u003e pool\n\u003e operators to defect, and them winding up mining those transactions for\n\u003e market-based fees, eventually forcing the pool operators who are trying to\n\u003e charge a discriminatory premium to give up.\n\u003e\n\u003e --\n\u003e https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220703/5934b536/attachment-0001.html\u003e",
"sig": "1f046e0f912499e99da4a9214de111904b4de187129b26b7610c60fafd46dacf74ba9723957a0abe5491318a007488970af144eaebed38baeafeda7e537ba00b"
}