"Surprisingly, Tail Emission Is Not Inflationary" -- A post by Peter Todd

[larry_vw_1955]

I think the question of tail emission is more about who should pay for security.

well, i think it would be unfair to single out people that don't move their bitcoin very often and try and debit their accounts periodically aka an inactivity fee. banks do that and they'll take your account down to 0 over time.

If someone is holding their coins for a long time, they have the benefit of the security of the network,

yeah and they paid for it. or the person that sent them the bitcoin paid for it through transaction fees. end of story.

while someone who is sending many transactions will need to pay transaction fees to the miners, which ultimately pay for this security.

it doesn't matter how many transactions someone sends. each transaction stands on its own. it doesn't matter who it is attached to. that's how bitcoin was designed.

There is also the point that someone who is paying a transaction fee is also paying for the service of getting their transaction confirmed, and for the block space necessary to include their transaction in the blockchain.

everyone that has any bitcoin their bitcoins were put through that same procedure. they all paid.

it's one thing to start debiting inactive bitcoin addresses. it's another thing to have a tail emission. it's probably best to do neither. and leave it at that.

[1715112958]

1715112958

[1715112958]

1715112958

[1715112958]

1715112958

[Wind_FURY]

What if the Bitcoin community could get consensus on building another chain, let's call it "The Miner Chain", that's merged mined with Bitcoin to continue incentivizing the miners through the "Miner Chain" with block rewards, for them to keep securing the network? Would that be a possible solution? Or would it just be something that could make some problems on the incentive structure?

Effect in theory might be bad, but it might start something that could lead to a more feasible solution.

[o_e_l_e_o]

merged mined

There has been quite a bit of discussion on this already.

You might be interested in this article from Paul Sztorc: https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/security-budget-ii-mm/
There are also a number of posts discussing it in this thread. Start from here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5405755.msg60549860#msg60549860

[ABCbits]

What if the Bitcoin community could get consensus on building another chain, let's call it "The Miner Chain", that's merged mined with Bitcoin to continue incentivizing the miners through the "Miner Chain" with block rewards, for them to keep securing the network? Would that be a possible solution? Or would it just be something that could make some problems on the incentive structure?

It's possible and some pool already perform merge mining, BitMex wrote good article about it 3 years ago[1]. RSK sidechain even made claim their coin is most profitable merged mining[2].

[1] https://blog.bitmex.com/the-growth-of-bitcoin-merge-mining/
[2] https://mining.rsk.co/, section "3. Start Mining"

[Wind_FURY]

Shower thought. What if, instead of a Tail Emission or expanding Bitcoin's coin supply, Ordinals and the demand for block-space it brings would be the answer to the question, "Will the fees be enough to support the miners when all the coins have been mined"?

I'm NOT debating whether Ordinals is good for Bitcoin. I'm merely looking at the possibility that Ordinals might make Bitcoin a better network for what Ethereum is already doing if doing them in Bitcoin will make it cheaper, and if the Bitcoin blockchain is more reliable for them.

[larry_vw_1955]

Shower thought. What if, instead of a Tail Emission or expanding Bitcoin's coin supply, Ordinals and the demand for block-space it brings would be the answer to the question, "Will the fees be enough to support the miners when all the coins have been mined"?

the answer is... "Yes!"

I'm NOT debating whether Ordinals is good for Bitcoin.

oh, it's good alright. good for miners. anyone that is looking to cash in on larger transaction fees. it's even good for someone that wants to store a monkey permanently online so it can never be deleted but that's another story...

[vjudeu]

What if the Bitcoin community could get consensus on building another chain, let's call it "The Miner Chain", that's merged mined with Bitcoin to continue incentivizing the miners through the "Miner Chain" with block rewards, for them to keep securing the network?

Then, it would be the same situation, as it was with NameCoin, that produced completely separated coins, that were not connected with the main chain. Unless people deploying such things would make it better this time, and fix NameCoin's mistakes.

Would that be a possible solution?

Yes, if deployed correctly. And I think people are better at discussing things, than they are at writing code, and checking for themselves, what is possible, and what is not. And as long as this is the case, I don't expect any deployment related to tail supply in the nearest future.

Or would it just be something that could make some problems on the incentive structure?

It would create problems, if not deployed correctly, exactly in the same way as Ordinals created many problems, that some people try to fix now, by proposing LN-based alternatives.

What if, instead of a Tail Emission or expanding Bitcoin's coin supply, Ordinals and the demand for block-space it brings would be the answer to the question, "Will the fees be enough to support the miners when all the coins have been mined"?

You can always raise on-chain fees in many different ways, for example by uploading a lot of data. But then, if you won't deploy anything, that would help on-chain users, then they will pay for that misuse. If you won't give them cut-through-like features, to fight with congested mempools, then you will see gigabyte-sized mempools, or even terabyte-sized mempools. And then, on-chain fees will be high enough to provide security budget. But at what cost? And is it worth it?

[franky1]

Shower thought. What if, instead of a Tail Emission or expanding Bitcoin's coin supply, Ordinals and the demand for block-space it brings would be the answer to the question, "Will the fees be enough to support the miners when all the coins have been mined"?

the answer is... "Yes!"

two idiots that think ordinals are a real economy that can sustain..
although miningpools will earn fees from excessive premiums caused by junk. we should not use junk for force out actual real utility.

i do find it funny how two basement dwelling miners earning only a few dollars a day think they have enough economic experience to think ruining a multimillion per hour payment system purely so they can earn a couple extra cents per day..

if they want to junk up the blockspace then they should be the ones paying the premium.. not other people

the answer is not to junk up the blockspace to make it cost multiple dollars per transaction. as that just makes people abandon the network for daily use. the answer is to allow more real use on the blockchain by real transactors so the more transactions there are the more combined income a pool can make

EG dont open a gym to serve one rich client for $1000 an hour per week. instead have a gym with 1000 clients that pay an average of $1 an hour each week, which combines to the same $1000 income

..
as for this topics title and subject

a monetary supply that always produces 50coins per block forever starts hyper inflated.. it does reduce the amount of inflation.. but inflation still occurs..
think about it
block one 50.. block two 50 means 100% inflation in 10 minutes average.. however by block 1000 there is 50,000 in circulation with only 50 (0.1%) increase per 10 min average

in reality based on yearly economics of say a healthy 1% per year inflation.. it would, based on a 2.625m coin per year(50 coin per block with 52500 blocks a year)take 100 years to get down to 1% inflation.. so unlike P.Todds theory... it would be inflationary for 100 years before it becomes un noticeable economically

[tromp]

a monetary supply that always produces 50coins per block forever starts hyper inflated.. it does reduce the amount of inflation.. but inflation still occurs..
think about it
block one 50.. block two 50 means 100% inflation in 10 minutes average.. however by block 1000 there is 50,000 in circulation with only 50 (0.1%) increase per 10 min average

in reality based on yearly economics of say a healthy 1% per year inflation.. it would, based on a 2.625m coin per year(50 coin per block with 52500 blocks a year)take 100 years to get down to 1% inflation.. so unlike P.Todds theory... it would be inflationary for 100 years before it becomes un noticeable economically

You're describing Grin's pure linear emission, except that Grin has 1-minute blocks with 60 Grin reward so the emission is 1 Grin per second forever [1].

[1] https://john-tromp.medium.com/a-case-for-using-soft-total-supply-1169a188d153

[Wind_FURY]

Shower thought. What if, instead of a Tail Emission or expanding Bitcoin's coin supply, Ordinals and the demand for block-space it brings would be the answer to the question, "Will the fees be enough to support the miners when all the coins have been mined"?

the answer is... "Yes!"

two idiots that think ordinals are a real economy that can sustain..
although miningpools will earn fees from excessive premiums caused by junk. we should not use junk for force out actual real utility.

Well ser, it was a hypothetical question that never debated that Ordinals can or will be sustainable. ALTHOUGH perhaps there could be an open debate whether the usage of the Bitcoin blockchain that you may not like, could or could not sustain a high block-space-demand environment to sustain the incentivization of the miners.

But I wouldn't listen to most opinions given in the forum, especially not from people who has been known to spread disinformation. I believe the best person to ask is philipma1957.

[DooMAD]

the answer is not to junk up the blockspace to make it cost multiple dollars per transaction. as that just makes people abandon the network for daily use. the answer is to allow more real use on the blockchain by real transactors so the more transactions there are the more combined income a pool can make

EG dont open a gym to serve one rich client for $1000 an hour per week. instead have a gym with 1000 clients that pay an average of $1 an hour each week, which combines to the same $1000 income

One person doesn't get to unilaterally decide that, though.  Being part of a network means you need to accept that other people exist and you can't control those people or what they choose to do.  If some people want to screw about with ordinals, provide lucrative fees and then miners decide to include those transactions in a block, then you are not in a position to deny that from happening.  Bitcoin is observably not Socialist, so I don't understand your insistence in attempting to portray it as such. 

If you believe the above isn't acceptable and want to change things so that you have influence over which transactions are accepted, so you can make it more Socialist, start your own protocol and mine your own blocks on it.  Until then, freedom reigns.