>
>
> Alternatively, losses could be at a predictable rate that's entirely
> different to the one Peter assumes.
>
No, peter only assumes that there *is* a rate.
Regardless of what the rate is, if it is any value for which there exists
*any fixed central tendency*, tail emission is *evenually* non inflationary.
But you are correct about the other two things:
1. If people are improving custody faster than 1/(N(t)*P) than tail
emission can still be inflationary. This seems far-fetched, imo.
2. The rate will be somewhat stochastic ("black swan envets"). Plausible
(popular wallet loses keys in coding error), but also... "true no matter
what". And not really relevant to tail-emission being non-inflationary.
Over a long enough time period, even these events can be factored into a
fixed central tendency. Even if it's 100 years, etc.
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
