On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 01:00:07PM -0600, Keagan McClelland via bitcoin-dev 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. 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. 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. 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.
Demurrage makes protocols like Lightning much more complex, and isn't compatible with existing implementations. While demurrage could in theory be implemented in a soft-fork by forcing txs to contain an output with the demurrage-taxed amount, spending to a pool of future mining fees, I really don't think it's practical to actually do that. Anyway, demurrage and inflation have identical economic properties. They're both a tax on savings. The only difference is the way that tax is implemented. -- https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
