Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2016, 06:13:00 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Self-regulating (in|de)flation  (Read 1120 times)
cuddlefish
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126



View Profile
June 03, 2011, 12:13:50 AM
 #1

R = 50 - (90% of F)

R is the reward for a block
F is the sum of all fees contained in that block.

Would this work?

1481177580
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481177580

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481177580
Reply with quote  #2

1481177580
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481177580
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481177580

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481177580
Reply with quote  #2

1481177580
Report to moderator
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
June 03, 2011, 01:02:36 AM
 #2

What happens to the difference?

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
goatpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330

Armory Developer


View Profile
June 03, 2011, 01:05:42 AM
 #3

R = 50 - (90% of F)

R is the reward for a block
F is the sum of all fees contained in that block.

Would this work?


Sure, but what's the point? A smoother transition to fee based rewards? Looks to me like it's biased on inflation if that's the case.

Quote
What happens to the difference?

Looks to me like he's talking about coinbase reward based off this math, meaning there is no difference left, just this much coins given to the solver.

btcarmory.com
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
June 03, 2011, 01:07:32 AM
 #4


Looks to me like he's talking about coinbase reward based off this math, meaning there is no difference left, just this much coins given to the solver.

If that is true, then 90% of all transaction fees simply cease to exist.  This is deflationary in it's own right.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
Vladimir
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


-


View Profile
June 03, 2011, 01:07:46 AM
 #5

R = 50 - (90% of F)

R is the reward for a block
F is the sum of all fees contained in that block.

Would this work?


Do you really think 50% of miners would vote for this?

-
cuddlefish
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126



View Profile
June 03, 2011, 01:11:29 AM
 #6


Looks to me like he's talking about coinbase reward based off this math, meaning there is no difference left, just this much coins given to the solver.

If that is true, then 90% of all transaction fees simply cease to exist.  This is deflationary in it's own right.

No, no. ONLY the number of new coins printed changes. TX fees still rewarded to miners.

goatpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330

Armory Developer


View Profile
June 03, 2011, 01:13:29 AM
 #7


Looks to me like he's talking about coinbase reward based off this math, meaning there is no difference left, just this much coins given to the solver.

If that is true, then 90% of all transaction fees simply cease to exist.  This is deflationary in it's own right.

Not the way I understood it. From my perception, the coinbase reward is reduced by 90% of the redeemable transaction fees. This is only to determine the coinbase reward value. The transaction fees are still redeemed. Let's say it's a smoother way to go from coinbase reward to tx fee reward instead of just cutting BTC output in half at defined milestones. Destroying the transaction fees would be dangerous in too many ways to be implemented in such simple fashion.

btcarmory.com
cuddlefish
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126



View Profile
June 03, 2011, 01:22:43 AM
 #8


Looks to me like he's talking about coinbase reward based off this math, meaning there is no difference left, just this much coins given to the solver.

If that is true, then 90% of all transaction fees simply cease to exist.  This is deflationary in it's own right.

Not the way I understood it. From my perception, the coinbase reward is reduced by 90% of the redeemable transaction fees. This is only to determine the coinbase reward value. The transaction fees are still redeemed. Let's say it's a smoother way to go from coinbase reward to tx fee reward instead of just cutting BTC output in half at defined milestones. Destroying the transaction fees would be dangerous in too many ways to be implemented in such simple fashion.

Yes. If you get 0.1 BTC in fees in your block:

49.91 SHINY NEW BTC with no TX history
0.1 BTC in fees
for a total of 50.01.

goatpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330

Armory Developer


View Profile
June 03, 2011, 01:25:00 AM
 #9

Yes. If you get 0.1 BTC in fees in your block:

49.91 SHINY NEW BTC with no TX history
0.1 BTC in fees
for a total of 50.01.

Ok now let's discuss what's the point oO, cuz I can't fathom much of it.

btcarmory.com
rezin777
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
June 03, 2011, 01:30:33 AM
 #10

This instead of the halving block rewards? Is this from the fear that fees won't provide enough incentive to mine?
goatpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330

Armory Developer


View Profile
June 03, 2011, 01:35:54 AM
 #11

This instead of the halving block rewards? Is this from the fear that fees won't provide enough incentive to mine?

I think it's mainly to skip the halving of coinbased reward milestones altogether. But then if the tx fee passes 55BTC before the 21mil target, you wouldn't be able to reach it, which isn't much of a problem I guess.

btcarmory.com
FooDSt4mP
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182


View Profile
June 03, 2011, 02:10:35 AM
 #12

The determinism of the coinbase is a feature.  Excess supply is calculable.  What you propose would leave it subject to manipulation by altering the fees.  That would make a more volatile transaction processing market.

As we slide down the banister of life, this is just another splinter in our ass.
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!