My point was that it's hard to get tail emission right.
If there is only one way to get it right, then it would be tail emission from launch. In gmaxwell's words, that's a pretty strong attractor in the design space, with nothing arbitrary about it. It's the most fair possible coin distribution. Which is exactly why many (most?) people don't like it, because they want to have an edge over later adopters. In that way, Grin is the only altruistic coin... |
|
|
|
Now I consider Dogecoin tail emission overly big.
So you have a problem with Dogecoin's yearly inflation rate, but not with its wealth concentration? |
|
|
|
nobody likes their supply converging towards infinity
Your statement can be rephrased as "nobody likes their share of the pie to be decreased". At first sight, that's seems obvious. But on closer inspection, it's not so obvious. For the pie to be useful, you want as many people as possible to have some share. And you want this pie to be more attractive to people than some other pie. So you don't want the pie ownership to be too concentrated. Maybe, if you believe in fairness, you want future generations to have some share of the pie as well. That's why you want the supply to keep growing. Preferably not by too much though. Just a percent or two per year. That makes you not lose too much of your share while allowing many more people their fair share.... |
|
|
|
Grin, at 3.5 years since launch, is only 3.5% into its soft total supply [1]. Compare that to Bitcoin, which at 3.5 years after launch was already 44% into its total supply, Or to Monero, which was already over 80%. Grin's emission is over an order of magnitude slower than any other coin. So yeah, it will do miserably on marketcap for many more years to come. Bitcoin reached the same 3.5% of its total supply in less than 3.5 months, distributing only to a handful of people, and trading for fractions of cents. I don't measure Grin's success by its marketcap, but by its elegance, simplicity [2], scalability, and long term survival. For the short term, it may be only of academic interest in a crypto world that's rather dominated by speculation. Tail subsidy will always continue to enrich the mining industry (and those close to it in the economy) at the expense of everyone else, creating a "winner" that can't be displaced by diffusion.
You have this weird idea that a coin's distribution is split into a later phase of distribution to the "mining industry" which is enriching itself, preceded by an earlier phase of distribution to "everyone else", who are now being unfairly diluted. Never mind that in Bitcoin "everyone else" were receiving much larger block rewards at much lower effort. The "winner" that can't be displaced by dilution in their lifetime is Satoshi, not some tail mining operation that in a competitive market makes a few % profit at best and would need many lifetimes to match Satoshi's stack. Miners are simply the mechanism that helps to fairly distribute coins to more people, and in Grin's case to more generations of people. [1] https://john-tromp.medium.com/a-case-for-using-soft-total-supply-1169a188d153[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoTechnology/comments/kyhgcv/are_there_any_public_cryptocurrencyblockchain/ |
|
|
|
Is it desirable, much less moral, for a percentage of the world's wealth be continually diverted to support mining?
This entirely misses the point of the block subsidy. It is for *distributing* coins, the only way to bring coins into existence. Is it desirable, much less moral, for a percentage of the world's wealth to be in the hands of some early whales? Absolutely not. If in 2140 when the last satoshi is mined, we look back at how all the bitcoin in existence have been distributed, then only 0.4% have been distributed in the prior 100 years, across 5 generations. That makes little sense economically. It's also completely different from how gold mining behaves, which to a first degree has a linear emission in our lifetimes. Would you characterize gold mining as undesirable and immoral? Similarly, the convergent inflation argument assumes there is some consistent coin loss-- but that isn't a fundamental property of the system! One could easily imagine a future where long lived entities like states offer people payments (or discounts) if they encumber their coins with CSV-like releases if they go 1-2 lifetimes without being moved. In such a future coin loss could become arbitrarily small, maybe even effectively zero (if, e.g. standardness rules were put in place to avoid accidental losses). In some hyperbitconized future it would make a lot of sense for things to move in this direction.
That is just wishful thinking. Coin loss will never be arbitrarily small. Any rules that guard against accidental loss are themselves a risk of abuse, and a nontrivial if not large fraction of users will keep relying on memorized passwords and well hidden seed phrases that will often go unrecovered upon accidental death. You also underestimate the ability of humans to screw things up. It's just not realistic to think that the yearly loss rate would ever drop below 0.01%. More likely it will remain above 0.1%. offering an option for people to dedicate their long lost coins to development help fund future development
How would that even work technically? Coins whose keys have been lost cannot be moved... Making the economic policy clear and simple is worth it, especially since security isn't going to be clear regardless. I'm pretty confident that if Bitcoin originally had perpetual subsidy the market would just be further diluted by variants that had different amounts of it.
If bitcoin had a fixed block reward of 600 since launch, then its emission of 1 coin per second forever would be recognized as the ultimately simple and fair emission. It would take 2-5 decades for its yearly supply inflation to become competitive with fiat, but what's the hurry? At least the high initial inflation rates would keep the speculators at bay, and bitcoin could focus on its *intended* purpose: use as a *currency*. Variants that distribute less or nothing to later generations would be rightly seen as forms of grift and speculation vehicles. Those later generations would have every incentive to reject all these alternatives and prefer the more fairly distributed coin which in time will have negligible inflation anyway. |
|
|
|
Lightning Network standards are managed by a group of people different from the ones who write the BIPs for the protocol
It's worth mentioning that the BIP equivalent for lightning is BOLT: https://github.com/lightning/bolts |
|
|
|
A full node is a software that performs full verification on everything, if it skips any part of the verification then it no longer can be considered a "full node".
Note that by this definition, there are relatively few bitcoin full nodes, since most nodes use the default nonzero assumevalid. |
|
|
|
DOGE contributor/developer Isn't if funny that they've just copied-pasted bitcoin's source code, changed few lines and call themselves developers? They copy-pasted Litecoin's source code, which was copy-pasted from Tenebrix' source code, which was copy-pasted from Bitcoin's source code... The only interesting development in all of this was the MWEB (Mimblewimble Extenseion Block) protocol that recently activated on Litecoin. |
|
|
|
The whole point of gHash is to make it hard to implement in an ASIC
Your chain is called FACT0RN, not GHASH. The whole point is to make a PoW dominated by factoring. Any preparatory hashing should take a relatively negligible amount of time, not so much that you have to start worrying whether it could be optimized by ASIC. |
|
|
|
> gHash runs in about 5−10 milliseconds on x86; tested on both Intel and AMD processors. Implementing this function on an ASIC would be a nightmare, and it is designed to be. The resource consumption is vast in logic and memory Making gHash super complex and hard to verify runs counter to the design principles for a good PoW. If vast resource consumption is the goal, then this can be achieved without high complexity and slow verification. E.g. replace gHash by Cuckoo Cycle [1], the simplest possible memory hard puzzle, or by Equihash. [1] https://github.com/tromp/cuckoo |
|
|
|
1. It is technically possible to hide things. Monero can do this, their features can be implemented by Bitcoin if needed.
Ring signatures sacrifice a lot of scalability (namely having a UTXO set that's much smaller than the set of all TXO) as you no longer know when outputs are spent. This is exacerbated by the large size of the rangeproofs included for every output of confidential transactions. |
|
|
|
The PoS coin Algorand is more secure than PoW BTC.
Sure; a centralized 100% premined coin can be more secure than a decentralized PoW coin. |
|
|
|
It is and it will always be impossible to reverse hashes until the end of time, this is even true for non-cryptographic hash functions like MurmurHash. That's for a very simple reason: math.
We are all eagerly awaiting your math proof of P != NP... |
|
|
|
Edit: He can actually reverse transactions with much less hashrate than half of it. If he's broken SHA-256, he can create one block whose work equals thousands'.
Not until they substantially raise difficulty; which requires mining 2016 blocks in 1/2 week (4x faster than expected) for every quadrupling of difficulty. So a 1000-fold increase requires over 10,000 blocks. |
|
|
|
Rootstock is **not** a Bitcoin sidechain as per the sidechains whitepaper. It does **not** benefit from Bitcoin hashrate.
That is the definition of a sidechain, a separate chain that has its own mining RSK is a Bitcoin sidechain, so it has its own network, and its own blockchain, but not its own token.
A sidechain.borrows all coins from its host chain. So while it can not have its own block *subsidy*, it still has miners earning block rewards composed entirely of transaction fees. |
|
|
|
No, he sends to Gloria and Rustie in a single transaction. As you noted, that makes more sense than doing 2 individual payments since you only pay once and only create one change output.
Note that doing it in two transactions also leaves you with only one unspent change output. |
|
|
|
using OP_RETURN to store data in blockchains actually creates far more bloat then the method we are describing here You don't need to store data on-chain, you only need to commit them to prove that they are connected with the chain. Some applications *do* want to store, in order to publicly expose the data. Committing doesn't do that. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
