pull down to refresh
64 sats \ 10 replies \ @petertodd OP 21 Oct 2022 \ parent \ on: I'm Peter Todd, cryptochronomancer/web-π dev, AMA bitcoin
Miners are who keep Bitcoin secure. A "bad outcome for miners" is in this case a bad outcome for everyone.
We want mining to be reasonably profitable, and something anyone can usefully do with a minimal amount of capital and expertise. Setting up a new pool should be easy to do with a minimal % of total hashing power; you shouldn't need fancy MEV optimization or cleverness to be profitable.
For example, if OFAC tries to get Bitcoin blocks censored, we're in a much better position if it's easy for people to setup new pools that ignore OFAC. That won't be true if miners have to scramble to extract value from transaction fees in complex ways. It also won't be true if reorg attacks make pools under a certain size unprofitable.
Even the 1.5%/year we're currently paying in inflation is tiny compared to the overall value of Bitcoin. I'd be happy to pay that forever to ensure my savings were safe.
My impression is that miners are hired security guards who get to order the transactions. Nodes are ultimately what secure the network. Though i suspect it's a shared responsibility among many elements.
If the problem you describe is accurate, which I don't believe it is, would not a less harmful solution be to reset the hashing algorithm to a different scheme instead of playing central banker like games with the supply?
Once you open up this door, there's no going back. Before you know it, Bitcoin will have it's own FMOC meetings for adjusting tail emission rates! (I'm being cheeky here, but also not.)
See to me, the scenarios you describe are theoretical and all just smells like using a hammer for situations where a scalpel is required. This top down, oh let's adjust this radioactive lever that should never be touched to address possible scenarios seems premature.
Which is maybe putting words in your mouth. I think you've always said this is probably a potential problem to look out for. Not a problem that needs to be fixed now or in the near future?
reply
My impression is that miners are hired security guards who get to order the transactions. Nodes are ultimately what secure the network.
Nah, you need both. One or the other isn't enough by itself, especially when you're talking about external attackers.
Anyway, if you think changing the 21 million limit is so radioactive, what do you think about demurrage? We can do essentially the exact same thing, economically speaking, with a soft-fork that keeps the 21 million limit.
reply
Having just read it and got the jist: oh wow that's some creative thinking.
ie locking up rewards to get them to mine for them again lol. hmmm.
lots of issues with getting miners to accept that one as a softfork. (UASF it lol)
I mean, I prefer it to the 21 million supply modification, but I'm not entirely certain it's aim is accurate either for incentives/outcomes.
It's interesting though, gonna have to chew on it.
reply
lots of issues with getting miners to accept that one as a softfork.
Rather the opposite: I think miners are the ones most likely to push this, a it provides them with a reliable income stream. And it can be implemented gradually, in a way that is compatible with existing wallets.
reply
I think you'll find much less resistance with this method at the very least. I think tail emissions is too controversial. Probably best to drop the push for tail emissions and make this your primary push.
reply
On my todo list is to write up a proper description of demmurage and how I think it could be added to bitcoin.
reply
We want mining to be reasonably profitable
Doesn't the difficulty adjustment help here? If it's not profitable and miners drop out of the network, the difficulty will decrease until it gets profitable enough such that miners are willing to mine again?
I thought there is a similar equilibrium here as you described with inflation rate and the rate of coin loss?
I am more afraid in too many miners dropping out too fast such that the difficulty adjustment won't happen for a very long time.
reply
You forgot the second part of that quote:
We want mining to be reasonably profitable, and something anyone can usefully do with a minimal amount of capital and expertise.
reply
How does that answer my question if the difficulty adjustment isn't making sure that there are always miners who are profitable? I saw your reply as an argument for tail emission.
I can see how tail emission could help that miners are "reasonably profitable" but I can't see how it helps with the second part of that quote. Or was that just a general statement?
Then I am not sure if that is possible at all: How do you want to level the field such that mining is "something anyone can usefully do with a minimal amount of capital and expertise"?
In a highly competitive market, my understanding is it will never be easy to get in and turn a profit without a lot of capital and/or expertise.
reply
What tail emission fixed re: relative profitability between different miners is it makes mining easier at a small scale, with less incentives to do things like reorg blocks for more money. That's why I pointed you to re-read that comment, where I explained all that.
reply