On Sat, Jul 09, 2022 at 08:46:47AM -0400, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> title: "Surprisingly, Tail Emission Is Not Inflationary"
> Of course, this isn't realistic as coins are constantly being lost due to
> deaths, forgotten passphrases, boating accidents, etc. These losses are
> independen
> We want mining to be is a boring, predictable, business that anyone can do,
> with as little reward as possible to larger scale miners.
To reach that, miners should earn their block rewards inside Lightning Network.
Then, if you want to send some transaction, and you have one satoshi fee, you
> On Jul 10, 2022, at 07:17, alicexbt wrote:
> Hi ZmnSCPxj,
>
>
>> Thus, we should instead prepare for a future where the block subsidy must be
>> removed, possibly before the existing schedule removes it, in case a
>> majority coalition of miner ever decides to censor particular transactio
Sorry, I made some wrong calculations in the last email. I think the change
would just be required in validation.cpp:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/a7f3479ba3fda4c9fb29bd7080165744c02ee921/src/validation.cpp#L1472
/dev/fd0
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
--- Original Message
On Sun, Jul 10, 2022 at 02:17:36PM +, alicexbt via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Hi ZmnSCPxj,
>
>
> > Thus, we should instead prepare for a future where the block subsidy must
> > be removed, possibly before the existing schedule removes it, in case a
> > majority coalition of miner ever decides to
On Sat, Jul 09, 2022 at 09:59:06PM +, ZmnSCPxj wrote:
> Good morning e, and list,
>
> > Yet you posted several links which made that specific correlation, to which
> > I was responding.
> >
> > Math cannot prove how much coin is “lost”, and even if it was provable that
> > the amount of coin
Hi ZmnSCPxj,
> Thus, we should instead prepare for a future where the block subsidy must be
> removed, possibly before the existing schedule removes it, in case a majority
> coalition of miner ever decides to censor particular transactions without
> community consensus.
> Fortunately forcing t
> Credit where credit is due: after writing the bulk of this article I
found out
> that Monero developer [smooth_xmr](https://www.reddit.com/user/smooth_xmr/
)
> also observed that tail emission results in a stable coin supply
> [a few years ago](
https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/4z0azk/maa
> Adding tail emission to Bitcoin would be a hard fork: a incompatible rule
> change that existing Bitcoin nodes would reject as invalid.
It won't, because we have zero satoshis. That means, it is possible to create
any backward-compatible way of storing amounts. And if we will ever implement
t
A parallel discussion is taking place at
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5405755.0
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Hello ,
Thanks for the correction - it however boils down to the same principle :
diluting other holders, possibly excessively, if you miscalculate the coins
"lost".
Which boils down to the same question again : How would you definitively
know that coins are "lost" or simply not accessed for x am
Hi Peter,
Interesting blog post.
On Sat, Jul 09, 2022 at 11:31:26AM -0400, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 09, 2022 at 08:24:51AM -0700, Eric Voskuil wrote:
> > To clarify, price inflation is not caused by market production. Attributing
> > the observed lack of inflation (eg fee
12 matches
Mail list logo
