Pseudocode for robust tail emission (episode 2)
10 sats \ 3 comments \ @jk_14 28 Dec 2022 bitcoin
Episode 2: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-December/021300.html
A system in which all users participate in ensuring its security is better than one in which only some of them participate. True, general statement. True and rational.
Achieving equilibrium between two parties with opposite interests due to market play instead of hardcoded parameter - is free market in its finest. True, general statement. True and rational.
People who realize bitcoin is better and better money with every halving, but hey: "Gresham's Law dOeSn'T aPPlY to Bitcoin", so they are 100% sure the transactions will takeover block subsidy role - they simultaneously confirm there is no risk of fork even after this safety measure is implemented. Yet another true statement.
On one scale I put: rationality. On the other scale they put: faith. Faith, religion, cult and the belief in "dogma of Satoshi's infallibility" (while often simultaneously claim: religion is irrational)
I'm sure Satoshi would agree with all these statements above if I only could be a "time traveler" to the times of Bitcoin's design. Just because: they are rational.
The only fault of these statements is that the system is already running... But it doesn't turn rational statements into irrational ones. Sorry, that's not how it works... ;)
"Nothing induces a bigger annoyance than the Truth" neverending Q.E.D. (see some comments below... ;)
write
preview
related posts
1001 sats \ 1 reply \ @nerd2ninja 28 Dec 2022
Gresham's law is grossly misunderstood. For one thing, Gresham's law is a warning, not advice. Gresham's law is about when different quality of money is treated as though it has the same value, because the better quality has more value, people will choose to spend the lesser quality first.
Gresham's law is essentially a market repricing dynamic. The lesser quality should have a lower price than the higher quality, but because that isn't reflected in the market, people hold and wait for the price the higher quality deserves.
"Gresham's law doesn't apply to Bitcoin" because there is no lesser quality Bitcoin or higher quality Bitcoin.
Now about introducing inflation to Bitcoin, again, why is the focus here rather than a discussion about the initial problem that brought up the discussion: https://www.cs.princeton.edu/~arvindn/publications/mining_CCS.pdf
At a certain point of playing central banker with Bitcoin, we might wonder, what was the point? Instead, we could look at a myriad of other solutions, for example demurrage: #84153
In fact, why Peter Todd decided to make inflation his primary focus of discussion rather than demurrage, or even the actual problem these solutions are actually trying to solve, is beyond me.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @jk_14 OP 28 Dec 2022
I can't agree with your:
"Gresham's law doesn't apply to Bitcoin" because there is no lesser quality Bitcoin or higher quality Bitcoin
Bitcoin pretend to be the money. Bitcoin is not in any test environment, but fully interacts with all other kind of money around. And of course, there is lesser quality money and higher quality money around. And Bitcoin in such real, living and interacting environment - is better and better money with every halving.
You have focused only on (non-general) third statement, which is - even without Gresham's law fragment - still valid. First and second are still valid, too.
There is no "central banker" in my proposal - or: do you really want to name free market as central banker?
P.S. just btw, demurrage in my opinion may work only after hiperbitcoinization: #85100
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @jk_14 OP 28 Dec 2022
Yet another statement:
If you insist the purpose of bitcoin in the first place is to be an immutable store of wealth - you just can't allow for the degradation of global network hashrate. This is orders of magnitude more important than "sacred" 21M.
reply