> 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
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
