From: Giuseppe B <beppeben2030@gmail•com>
To: vjudeu@gazeta•pl
Cc: "Corey Haddad <corey3@gmail•com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion"
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2022 16:10:31 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CABrXkXrRX5Zd01ikWOcmxEwXdw4k10WfspOhOu8xKi_JU23Q0A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <139633828-26b5fcbad80d1ca7046479237716ace3@pmq8v.m5r2.onet>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4206 bytes --]
It's the first time I read about the security budget and it definitely
sounds scary to me.
If it only takes a few million dollars to attack BTC and make it completely
unusable for one day, I suppose it's only a matter of time before some
hedge fund actually does it, using a short position to profit from the huge
panic sell wave and global loss of confidence that would result from it.
It seems even cheaper to do than the recent attack to Terra, unless I'm
missing something.
On Wed, Jul 6, 2022, 1:10 PM <vjudeu@gazeta•pl> wrote:
> > If the only realistic (fair, efficient & proportionate) way to pay for
> Bitcoin's security was by having some inflation scheme that violated the 21
> million cap, then agreeing to break the limit would probably be what makes
> sense, and in the economic interest of its users and holders.
>
> So, Paul Sztorc was right again, there are three options: Enormous Block
> Size Increases, Violate 21M Coin Limit, or >50% Miner Fee-Revenues Come
> From Merged Mining: https://www.truthcoin.info/images/sb-trilemma.png.
> And I think using Merged Mining is the best option. More about that:
> https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/security-budget-ii-mm/
>
> > Another option, if we were to decide we are over-secured in the short
> term, would be to soft-fork in a reduction in the current and near-future
> mining rewards, by somehow locking the coins in a contract that deprived
> the miner of the full reward, and then using that contract to pay the
> rewards out far in the future, should at some point we feel the security
> budget was insufficient.
>
> Yes, that's also possible, RSK uses that. And making some kind of
> soft-fork for that is also possible, but I don't know if miners will agree
> to send some coinbase reward to "<futureBlockNumber> OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY
> OP_DROP OP_TRUE".
>
> On 2022-07-06 06:29:18 user Corey Haddad via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >Bitcoin's finite supply is the main argument for people investing in it,
> the whole narrative around bitcoin is based on its finite supply. While it
> has its flaws and basically condemns bitcoin to be only used as a store >of
> value (and not as a currency), I don't think it's worth questioning it at
> this point.
> >
> >Just my 2 sats.
> >
> >Giuseppe.
>
>
> A finite supply alone is not enough to give something value, as it must
> also be useful in some way. In the case of Bitcoin, various forms of
> cryptographic security must all work - and work together - to make Bitcoin
> useful. If the only realistic (fair, efficient & proportionate) way to pay
> for Bitcoin's security was by having some inflation scheme that violated
> the 21 million cap, then agreeing to break the limit would probably be what
> makes sense, and in the economic interest of its users and holders.
>
> There will always be competitive pressures with respect to efficiency, and
> both being over-secured and under-secured would be economically inefficient
> for a crypto currency, and thereby laving room for a more optimally-secured
> competitor to gain ground. Currently there is zero feedback in the Bitcoin
> system between what we might think is the optimum amount of security and
> what actually exists. There is also zero agreement on how much security
> would constitute such an optimum. Figuring out how much security is needed,
> or even better, figuring out a way to have a market mechanism to answer
> that question, will be an important project.
>
> Another option, if we were to decide we are over-secured in the short
> term, would be to soft-fork in a reduction in the current and near-future
> mining rewards, by somehow locking the coins in a contract that deprived
> the miner of the full reward, and then using that contract to pay the
> rewards out far in the future, should at some point we feel the security
> budget was insufficient. Anthony Towns presented a form of this concept in
> greater detail at a Scaling Bitcoin conference some years ago. While this
> solution, if employed, would only work for some finite amount of time, it
> is possible that could give additional decades before the accumulated
> security budget was exhausted.
>
>
> Corey
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4965 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-07-07 14:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 55+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <mailman.9.1654344003.14400.bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
2022-06-04 12:27 ` John Carvalho
2022-06-04 13:48 ` Keagan McClelland
2022-06-04 16:12 ` alicexbt
2022-06-06 13:02 ` Erik Aronesty
2022-06-12 3:36 ` Peter Todd
2022-06-12 13:02 ` Erik Aronesty
2022-06-12 16:35 ` Corey Haddad
2022-06-12 19:16 ` alicexbt
2022-06-19 10:31 ` Peter Todd
2022-06-19 15:54 ` Manuel Costa
2022-06-19 18:26 ` Kate Salazar
2022-06-19 22:35 ` Erik Aronesty
2022-06-21 19:00 ` Keagan McClelland
2022-06-21 20:10 ` Eric Voskuil
2022-06-23 19:17 ` Peter Todd
2022-06-28 3:55 ` Billy Tetrud
2022-06-28 16:23 ` Alex Lee
2022-06-28 23:22 ` Peter Todd
2022-06-29 5:02 ` Alex Lee
2022-06-28 23:20 ` Peter Todd
2022-06-29 10:44 ` Kate Salazar
2022-06-30 15:25 ` Billy Tetrud
2022-07-03 9:43 ` Peter Todd
2022-07-03 10:30 ` Giuseppe B
2022-07-06 4:28 ` Corey Haddad
2022-07-06 11:10 ` vjudeu
2022-07-07 0:46 ` Billy Tetrud
2022-07-07 12:15 ` vjudeu
2022-07-07 14:05 ` Erik Aronesty
2022-07-07 14:10 ` Giuseppe B [this message]
2022-07-08 5:03 ` Billy Tetrud
2022-06-30 17:04 ` Erik Aronesty
[not found] <mailman.9.1657195203.20624.bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
2022-07-07 13:24 ` John Carvalho
2022-07-07 14:12 ` Peter Todd
2022-07-07 16:24 ` Eric Voskuil
2022-07-07 17:37 ` Erik Aronesty
2022-07-07 19:57 ` Eric Voskuil
2022-07-07 21:11 ` Erik Aronesty
2022-07-08 0:28 ` Eric Voskuil
2022-07-08 4:59 ` vjudeu
2022-07-08 7:26 ` John Carvalho
2022-07-08 15:14 ` Erik Aronesty
2022-07-14 4:55 ` Billy Tetrud
2022-07-07 22:06 ` Anthony Towns
2022-07-07 22:02 ` Corey Haddad
2022-06-03 18:39 alicexbt
2022-06-04 0:29 ` micaroni
2022-06-04 18:43 ` Jorge Timón
2022-06-05 4:18 ` alicexbt
2022-06-08 3:51 ` Billy Tetrud
2022-06-08 9:22 ` Jorge Timón
2022-06-09 4:30 ` Billy Tetrud
2022-06-09 0:03 ` Ryan Grant
2022-07-19 4:44 ` Anthony Towns
2022-07-19 14:46 ` alicexbt
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CABrXkXrRX5Zd01ikWOcmxEwXdw4k10WfspOhOu8xKi_JU23Q0A@mail.gmail.com \
--to=beppeben2030@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=vjudeu@gazeta$(echo .)pl \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox