related posts
101 sats \ 5 replies \ @ln123 19 Dec 2022
This is actually really interesting
In a world without block reward. A rational miner may choose to compete with the most recent block, rather than build on it.
So if there was 100 reward in the last block, they would claim 50, and leave 50 for the rest of the network to build on (so others would have incentive to build on the fork)
As plebs I guess the impact would be, just wait a few more blocks for final confirmation.
Perhaps by that point there'll be some other solution, be that tail emission, or rules about block acceptance..
reply
205 sats \ 4 replies \ @jk_14 19 Dec 2022
yes, tail emission is easiest approach and it would solve so many possible future risks, and even bitcoin itself will show us with first destructive halving occurrence - what is the lowest possible level of emission to preserve already reached network security level
reply
380 sats \ 1 reply \ @ursuscamp 19 Dec 2022
That is a game that, once you start playing, never ends. How do you know what is the right amount? Who makes that decision? Most likely there would be many competing forks looking for the correct "tail emission" if such a thing even exists. Eventually one would likely prove "correct" and become dominant, but how long would that last?
Bitcoin at that point will just become another managed currency. What if mining economics change again? Like a breakthrough in ASIC technology? We will be changing the tail emissions forever, always tuning, looking for the right monetary policy. The idea that Bitcoin's monetary policy is set will be gone completely.
reply
221 sats \ 0 replies \ @jk_14 19 Dec 2022
why do you ask question to already answered problem?
Again:
bitcoin itself will show us with first destructive halving occurrence - what is the lowest possible level of emission to preserve already reached network security level
the stopping before a cliff (or: spiral of death) is one time process - we can remove (destructive) halvings or not
breakthrough in ASIC technology changes nothing (like every breakthrough from CPU -> GPU -> FPGA -> ASIC - didn't interfere with emission)
reply
1 sat \ 1 reply \ @thebtctoto 20 Dec 2022
Bitcoin as an experiment is, simply put, hard money without tail emissions. It either succeeds or fails but adopting tail emissions means it is not bitcoin any longer...its something else at that point.
reply
180 sats \ 0 replies \ @jk_14 20 Dec 2022
Satoshi is not the Papal - he hardcoded a terrible long-term security model in Bitcoin experiment. Period.
Once we realise there is no dogma of Satoshi's infallibility regarding this above - the discussion to reach the consensus is open.
90% of votes is nothing else but still Bitcoin (vide: SegWit case)
reply
1 sat \ 0 replies \ @01xCc 19 Dec 2022
мы уже это протестировали.! такого результата может добится любой!
Пусть его награда будет меньше.! это его выбор...
Следует заострить внимание на времени между блоками...
быват блоки и по 5 секунд. это конечно смешно так быстро найти нужное число... но все же.!
Как урегулировать более стабильно 1 блок в 10 минут? или этот показатель можно контролировать другим методом? что приведет к 9 минутам за блок?потом 8 минут 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @notgeld 19 Dec 2022
The paper doesn't take into consideration incoming unconfirmed transaction flow, which might be modeled via Queueing theory similarly how it was applied for LN channels economics here and originally here.
reply