On 2022-07-10 07:27, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
The block subsidy directly ties miner revenue to the total value of
Bitcoin:
that's exactly how you want to incentivise a service that keeps Bitcoin
secure.
I'm confused. I thought your argument in the OP of this thread was that
a perpet
>
>
> subsidy to directly tie miner revenue to the total value of Bitcoin
> makes it not exactly how we want to incentivise a service that keeps
>
>
again, this is meaningless. if the fees aren't enough to keep bitcoin
secure for large transactions, then large holders are incentivised to mine
t
> On Jul 18, 2022, at 14:14, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> subsidy to directly tie miner revenue to the total value of Bitcoin
>> makes it not exactly how we want to incentivise a service that keeps
>>
>
> again, this is meaningless. if the fees aren't enough to keep
Good evening ZmnSCPxj,
Interesting attempt.
>a * G + b * G + k * G
Unfortunately I don't think this qualifies as a commitment, since one could
trivially open the "commitment" to some uncommitted value x (e.g. a is set
to x and b is set to a+b-x). Perhaps you were thinking of Pedersen
commitment
On Fri, Jun 03, 2022 at 06:39:34PM +, alicexbt via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Covenants on bitcoin will eventually be implemented with a soft fork.
That's begging the question. The issue is whether we should allow such
soft forks, or if the danger of losing coins to covenants and thus
losing fungibi
