On 7/11/22 15:26, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
Anyway, designing protocols for "price go up forever" hopium is a bad idea.
Yet that is the design, and it's a good one. It is equivalent to
relying on bitcoin to steadily grow in utility vs. fiat currencies.
If it fails to do that, there
> The emission curve lasts over 100 years because Bitcoin success state
> requires it to be entrenched globally.
It effectively doesn't. The last 100 years from 2040-2140 only emits a
pittance of about 0.4 of all bitcoin.
What matters for proper distribution is the shape of the emission
curve. I
> There's only one coin whose expected (soft) emission time is larger
> than bitcoin's, and it's about an order of magnitude larger, at 50
> years.
Make that two coins. For DOGE it is 33 years.
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundati
What about burning all fees and keep a block reward that will smooth out
while keeping the ~21M coins limit ?
Benefits :
- Miners would still be incentivized to collect higher fees transaction
with the indirect perspective to generate more reward in future.
- Revenues are equally distributed over
Bitcoin doesn't rely on fees. It relys on users protecting the network out
of self interest
- running nodes now
- mining later
It has always been incentivised by holders acting out of self interest
If large holders allocating a small percentage to mining to protect their
interest, that's all Bi
> What about burning all fees and keep a block reward that will smooth out
while keeping the ~21M coins limit ?
This would be a hard fork afaict as it would go against the rules of the
coinbase transaction following the usual halving schedule.
However, if instead we added a rule that fees have to
Rather than get bogged down discussing the technical details of how such a
change could even take place, I'll go ahead and say that modifying the 21M cap
is a supremely reckless idea. Your mathematical proof aside, the idea rests on
the unprovable premise that people will keep losing coins indef
> your proof is incorrect (or, rather, relies on a highly unrealistic
assumption)
The assumption that coin are lost ar a constant rate is not required. Tail
emission will asymptotically decrease the rate of inflation to zero, at
which point the increase in coin exactly matches the amount of coin l
On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 08:21:40PM -0400, Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> Oops, you are right. We need the bribe to be the output of the coinbase,
> but due to the maturity rule, it isn't really a bribe.
> Too bad coinbases cannot take other coinbase outputs as inputs to bypass
> the ma
