From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org>
To: Alfie John <alfie@alfie•wtf>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Pseudocode for robust tail emission
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2023 15:58:07 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y8hdX55fT/Rssh1q@petertodd.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2480C772-EE75-4350-BF11-FA9FEFC8A4EA@alfie.wtf>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1911 bytes --]
On Sun, Jan 01, 2023 at 11:42:50PM +1100, Alfie John wrote:
> On 31 Dec 2022, at 10:28 am, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> >> This way:
> >>
> >> 1. system cannot be played
> >> 2. only in case of destructive halving: system waits for the recovery of network security
> >
> > The immediate danger we have with halvings is that in a competitive market,
> > profit margins tend towards marginal costs - the cost to produce an additional
> > unit of production - rather than total costs - the cost necessary to recover
> > prior and future expenses. Since the halving is a sudden shock to the system,
> > under the right conditions we could have a significant amount of hashing power
> > just barely able to afford to hash prior to the halving, resulting in all that
> > hashing power immediately having to shut down and fees increasing dramatically,
> > and likely, chaotically. Your proposal does not address that problem as it can
> > only measure difficulty prior to the halving point.
>
>
> > ... Since the halving is a sudden shock to the system
>
> Is it though? Since everyone knows of the possible outcomes, wouldn't a possible halving be priced in?
Re-read that I said. That explains why despite the halving being a forseeable
event, there's no mechanism to "price it in" when it comes to hashing power.
> > resulting in all that hashing power immediately having to shut down and fees increasing dramatically
>
> Which should cause that hashing power to come back because of this fee increases.
Right now the total reward per transaction is $63, three orders of magnitude
higher than typical fees. Sufficient fee increases to bring back hashing power
in a scenario like that would cause enormous disruption to many things,
including Lightning channels.
--
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-01-18 20:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-12-23 18:43 jk_14
2022-12-30 23:28 ` Peter Todd
2023-01-01 12:42 ` Alfie John
2023-01-18 20:58 ` Peter Todd [this message]
2022-12-27 15:34 jk_14
2022-12-30 18:20 ` Billy Tetrud
2023-01-01 21:23 jk_14
2023-01-02 4:53 ` Billy Tetrud
2023-01-01 22:27 jk_14
2023-01-02 23:02 jk_14
2023-01-04 16:03 ` Billy Tetrud
2023-01-07 18:52 jk_14
2023-01-07 23:22 ` Eric
2023-01-21 10:20 jk_14
[not found] <mailman.9.1674388803.14535.bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
2023-01-22 14:13 ` John Tromp
2023-02-01 22:04 jk_14
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Y8hdX55fT/Rssh1q@petertodd.org \
--to=pete@petertodd$(echo .)org \
--cc=alfie@alfie$(echo .)wtf \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
/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