From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org>
To: Kate Salazar <mercedes.catherine.salazar@gmail•com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Billy Tetrud <billy.tetrud@gmail•com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2022 05:43:53 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YsFk2S/1AWG2Jy/9@petertodd.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHiDt8A+uQpY7jJ56hnk929yzwLw-DOT721cj1aUpGVzwmz2NQ@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2228 bytes --]
On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 12:44:11PM +0200, Kate Salazar via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > On an idealistic level, I agree with Keagan that it would make sense to
> > have "a balance of fees to that effect". I think doing that would be
> > technically/economically optimal. However, I think there is an enormous
> > benefit to having a cultural aversion to monetary inflation and the
> > consequences of convincing the bitcoin community that inflation is ok could
> > have unintended negative consequences (not to mention how difficult
> > convincing the community would be in the first place). There's also the
> > economic distortion that inflation causes that has a negative effect which
> > should also be considered. The idea of decaying utxo value is interesting
> > to consider, but it would not solve the economic distortion that
> > monetary inflation causes, because that distortion is a result of monetary
> > devaluation (which decaying utxos would be a form of). Then again, maybe in
> > this case the distortion of inflation would actually be a correction -
> > correcting for the externality of benefit received by holders. I'm
> > stream-of-consciousnessing a bit, but anyways, I suspect its not worth the
> > trouble to perfect the distribution of bitcoin blockchain security costs to
> > include holders. Tho, if I were to go back in time and influence how
> > bitcoin was designed, I might advocate for it.
> >
>
> Pool operators are free to request larger fees from older utxos, or from
> all utxos, or from newer utxos, at their judgement, looking at the
> blockspace demand census and at what the other pool operators are doing.
> This is not consensus, it's policy. It's not a technology problem, it's
> solved above in the social layer.
If pool operators can easily collude like you are proposing, we have a serious
problem with pool centralization.
What you would actually expect in a healthy Bitcoin ecosystem is for some pool
operators to defect, and them winding up mining those transactions for
market-based fees, eventually forcing the pool operators who are trying to
charge a discriminatory premium to give up.
--
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-07-03 9:44 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 [this message]
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
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=YsFk2S/1AWG2Jy/9@petertodd.org \
--to=pete@petertodd$(echo .)org \
--cc=billy.tetrud@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=mercedes.catherine.salazar@gmail$(echo .)com \
/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