Sorry, I made some wrong calculations in the last email. I think the change would just be required in validation.cpp:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/a7f3479ba3fda4c9fb29bd7080165744c02ee921/src/validation.cpp#L1472 /dev/fd0 Sent with Proton Mail secure email. ------- Original Message ------- On Sunday, July 10th, 2022 at 2:17 PM, alicexbt via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Hi ZmnSCPxj, > > > Thus, we should instead prepare for a future where the block subsidy must > > be removed, possibly before the existing schedule removes it, in case a > > majority coalition of miner ever decides to censor particular transactions > > without community consensus. > > Fortunately forcing the block subsidy to 0 is a softfork and thus easier to > > deploy. > > > `consensus.nSubsidyHalvingInterval` for mainnet in [chainparams.cpp][1] can > be decreased to 195000. This will reduce the number of halvings from 34 to 14 > and subsidy will be 0 when it becomes less than 0.01 although not sure if > this will be a soft fork. > > I doubt there will be consensus for it because all the [projections and > predictability][2] about bitcoin(currency) would be affected by this change. > Maybe everyone can agree with this change if most of the miners start being > 'compliant' like one of the coinjoin implementation. > > [1]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/chainparams.cpp#L66 > [2]: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Controlled_supply > > > /dev/fd0 > > Sent with Proton Mail secure email. > > > ------- Original Message ------- > On Saturday, July 9th, 2022 at 9:59 PM, ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote: > > > > > Good morning e, and list, > > > > > Yet you posted several links which made that specific correlation, to > > > which I was responding. > > > > > > Math cannot prove how much coin is “lost”, and even if it was provable > > > that the amount of coin lost converges to the amount produced, it is of > > > no consequence - for the reasons I’ve already pointed out. The amount of > > > market production has no impact on market price, just as it does not with > > > any other good. > > > > > > The reason to object to perpetual issuance is the impact on censorship > > > resistance, not on price. > > > > To clarify about censorship resistance and perpetual issuance ("tail > > emission"): > > > > * Suppose I have two blockchains, one with a constant block subsidy, and > > one which had a block subsidy but the block subsidy has become negligible > > or zero. > > * Now consider a censoring miner. > > * If the miner rejects particular transactions (i.e. "censors") the miner > > loses out on the fees of those transactions. > > * Presumably, the miner does this because it gains other benefits from the > > censorship, economically equal or better to the earnings lost. > > * If the blockchain had a block subsidy, then the loss the miner incurs is > > small relative to the total earnings of each block. > > * If the blockchain had 0 block subsidy, then the loss the miner incurs is > > large relative to the total earnings of each block. > > * Thus, in the latter situation, the external benefit the miner gains from > > the censorship has to be proportionately larger than in the first situation. > > > > Basically, the block subsidy is a market distortion: the block subsidy > > erodes the value of held coins to pay for the security of coins being moved. > > But the block subsidy is still issued whether or not coins being moved are > > censored or not censored. > > Thus, there is no incentive, considering only the block subsidy, to not > > censor coin movements. > > Only per-transaction fees have an incentive to not censor coin movements. > > > > Thus, we should instead prepare for a future where the block subsidy must > > be removed, possibly before the existing schedule removes it, in case a > > majority coalition of miner ever decides to censor particular transactions > > without community consensus. > > Fortunately forcing the block subsidy to 0 is a softfork and thus easier to > > deploy. > > > > Regards, > > ZmnSCPxj > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
