Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable

From: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil•org>
To: Keagan McClelland <keagan.mcclelland@gmail•com>,
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
	<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2022 13:10:43 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <8E13E507-55F8-480B-A1A9-2643BC9C1C48@voskuil.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALeFGL0CQC4_swZTt-=sbe=ZiCmRthZghGDtrWFx5bQCBeOJcg@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3373 bytes --]

> On Jun 21, 2022, at 12:28, Keagan McClelland via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> > The PoW security of Bitcoin benefits all Bitcoin users, proportional to the
> value of BTC they hold; if Bitcoin blocks aren't reliably created the value of
> *all* BTC goes down. It doesn't make sense for the entire cost of that security
> to be paid for on a per-tx basis.

Actually it does. People who transact are realizing the benefit of money - the avoidance of barter costs. Those who never transact, never realize any benefit.

> And there's a high chance paying for it on a
> per-tx basis won't work anyway due to lack of consistent demand.
> 
> FWIW I prefer the demurrage route. Having something with finite supply as a means of measuring economic activity is unprecedented and I believe deeply important. I'm sympathetic to the argument that the security of the chain should not be solely the responsibility of transactors.

Chain security - censorship resistance (as opposed to individual double-spend security), is entirely dependent upon tx fees.

> We realize the value of money on receipt, hold *and* spend and it would be appropriate for there to be a balance of fees to that effect.

There is zero point in saving if you never spend. You can instead just burn your coin.

> While inflation may be simpler to implement (just chop off the last few halvings), I think it would be superior (on the assumption that such a hodl tax was necessary) to keep the supply fixed and have people's utxo balances decay, at least at the level of the UX.

A hoard decays naturally due to opportunity cost. Investing it requires transaction to invest, and transaction to earn (profit), and transaction to return it (interest).

> But also none of this should be reasons we don't improve Bitcoin's value (and therefore demand)

Demand is the only reason we save, and eventually transacting is the only motivation for saving. No transacting implies no demand - and no security.

e

> Keagan
> 
>> On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 2:42 AM Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On Sun, Jun 19, 2022 at 2:04 PM Manuel Costa via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>  if we start seeing issues with block rewards being too low to maintain acceptable security, we're going to have multiple solutions being implemented for it, and definitely a hard fork to indefinitely maintain some degree of block subsidy
>> 
>> if we failed to first try increasing block demand with advanced transaction support, it would seem like we were just throwing money and growth away to support one narrative (simplicty of function), while destroying another (finite supply) 
>> 
>> if stuff like covenant support and mweb gets us higher fees, with stuff like on-chain mixing protocols, vaults, and higher utility, it might be more than enough to sustain bitcoin on fees alone forever
>>  
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5181 bytes --]