1... > Degradation Remember, if hash rate declines (no sign that it will so far), the net-effect is longer clearance times for large transactions.
It's not "failure" or "breaking" 2... Certainly, if demand for blockspace isn't high enough to support clearance then the *first *thing to do would be to improve the utility of the chain so that demand for blockspace is high. This is one of the strong reasons to support research like covenants and rgb and taro. If those tools become popular, we will see rising fees. Indeed, large miners should be *paying* researchers to advance these tools. It's in their own best interests. 3... > and on the other side I put game theory and well defined Prisoner's Dilemma. The prisoner's dilemma does not state that zero stakeholders will mine, just far fewer. Real world experiments with actual prisoners and students show cooperation rates of 33%. Plus there are incentives. Stakeholders who want to move large amounts in a reasonable amount of time are incentivised to mine. 4... Changing issuance is a non-starter, forte very game-theoretic reasons you refer to it would destroy the value proposition of the chain, fork the coin and i have every confidence that the surviving fork would be the one without the new issuance On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 9:43 AM <jk...@op.pl> wrote: > > On one scale you puts the Trust to the large stakeholders (why we avoid > plenty of small stakeholders, btw), > and on the other side I put game theory and well defined Prisoner's > Dilemma. > > Again: large stakeholders WILL NOT incentivised to mine, they will have > the hundreds excuses why not to switch-on Antminers back. > That's how it simply works. Bitcoin would fail miserably if Satoshi was > based his concept mainly on existence of idealists. > > If we will observe lack of hashrate recovery four years after some halving > and still unprepared like today > - means the trust in large stakeholders was a very costly mistake. > > > Superiority of Proof of Work against Proof of Stake has been discussed > enough either > The overall conclusion with what I fully agree is: swapping PoW to PoS - > would be a degradation. > You can stop talking about degradation to proof of stake, but just: > degradation. > > Degradation of Bitcoin, due to human greed. > > Now you mine and you have an INSTANT gratification. > Then you will mine and it will cost you real money, but simple switch - > and you have a DELAYED, maybe some day in the future, maybe only a tiny - > punishment. > And The Punishment Won't Be Tiny. > > > "If the pain after hitting the hand with a hammer would appear after a > month - people would notoriously walk with swollen fingers" > 100% (^2) > > Regards > Jaroslaw > > > > W dniu 2022-08-17 13:10:38 użytkownik Erik Aronesty <e...@q32.com> > napisał: > > > you can stop talking about the "security of the system" as meaningful > > this has been discussed enough > > if fees are not sufficient, clearance times increase and large > stakeholders are incentivised to mine > > in the best case, fees are sufficient > > in the worst case, it degrades to proof of stake > > i'm sure you can see how that's fine either way > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
