Bitcoin Forum
March 29, 2024, 12:26:23 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 26.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: An IDEA for BTC ½ ing structure.  (Read 333 times)
This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic.
philipma1957 (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4074
Merit: 7591


'The right to privacy matters'


View Profile WWW
December 11, 2022, 07:55:02 PM
 #1

Okay.

We are scheduled for:

2024  = 3.12500000
2028  = 1.56250000
2032  = 0.78125000
2036  = 0.39062500
2040  = 0.19531250
2044  = 0.09765625
2048  = 0.048828125
2052  = 0.0244140625
2056  = 0.01220703125


How about

2024 = 3.12500000
2032 = 1.56250000
2040 = 0.78125000
2048 = 0.39062500
2056 = 0.19531250



By slowing the cycle down the rewards continues at a reasonable pace for miners
and the incentive to use LN network to avoid fees on the chain is increase.


two pros above

cons
lack of consensus

the shift in 2024 could be too jarring for miners since earnings will quickly drop 4 fourfold vs two fold.


Opinions wanted on stretching the cycle from 4 to 8 years.

I came up with this idea in this thread.



https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5427388.0




Note I mod it but usually only delete personal attacks of a vicious nature.
Via 2x  block speed a block every 20 minutes vs every 10 minutes



▄▄███████▄▄
▄██████████████▄
▄██████████████████▄
▄████▀▀▀▀███▀▀▀▀█████▄
▄█████████████▄█▀████▄
███████████▄███████████
██████████▄█▀███████████
██████████▀████████████
▀█████▄█▀█████████████▀
▀████▄▄▄▄███▄▄▄▄████▀
▀██████████████████▀
▀███████████████▀
▀▀███████▀▀
.
 MΞTAWIN  THE FIRST WEB3 CASINO   
.
.. PLAY NOW ..
1711671983
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711671983

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711671983
Reply with quote  #2

1711671983
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
1711671983
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711671983

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711671983
Reply with quote  #2

1711671983
Report to moderator
1711671983
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711671983

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711671983
Reply with quote  #2

1711671983
Report to moderator
philipma1957 (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4074
Merit: 7591


'The right to privacy matters'


View Profile WWW
December 11, 2022, 07:55:14 PM
 #2

space

note not sure if idea is original


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5427388.0
My argument is the opposite from op would be just 2x block time. Would make mining incentives last longer.
~
Has anyone ever posted this idea?
I've only seen suggestions for the opposite: more and faster blocks.

Completely agree.  Still, the amount of energy can be reduced significantly.
It's good to realize why that energy is being consumed: because it's profitable. One way to reduce it, is a lower Bitcoin price. Another way is lower transaction fees, and very important: the block halving. Until now, the price went up more than block rewards went down, but at some point in the (near) future that won't work anymore. So I kinda expect Bitcoin energy consumption to have peaked. And of course higher energy prices lead to lower energy consumption, unless miners can move to a different area.

yeah lite coin and doge covered that direction.

LN is supposed to make the scaling issue go away.
I do wonder if we altered block speed in 2024 making 1/2 ings be every 8 years more movement to LN
and more fees to miners would happen.

3.125 >>>>>> 2024
1.5625 >>>>> 2032
0.78125 >>>> 2040

could be an improvement.

▄▄███████▄▄
▄██████████████▄
▄██████████████████▄
▄████▀▀▀▀███▀▀▀▀█████▄
▄█████████████▄█▀████▄
███████████▄███████████
██████████▄█▀███████████
██████████▀████████████
▀█████▄█▀█████████████▀
▀████▄▄▄▄███▄▄▄▄████▀
▀██████████████████▀
▀███████████████▀
▀▀███████▀▀
.
 MΞTAWIN  THE FIRST WEB3 CASINO   
.
.. PLAY NOW ..
NeuroticFish
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3626
Merit: 6321


Looking for campaign manager? Contact icopress!


View Profile
December 11, 2022, 08:05:43 PM
Merited by Welsh (3), ABCbits (1)
 #3

If we keep the same block speed (at ~10 minutes) and start doubling periods we will go over 21M bitcoin. Not good.
If we slow down the blocks it will be easier to keep all the numbers right but then we may end up with an overly congested mempool as a rule, not an exception. And on-chain transactions still have to go even if the majority may get to go off-chain (LN and maybe other innovation too by then).

I'm not convinced that any of these would have a good effect.
Sorry.


Edit - some useful links:
* to get the current numbers: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Controlled_supply
* food for thought: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Prohibited_changes

..JAMBLER.io..Create Your Bitcoin Mixing
Business Now for   F R E E 
▄█████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████▀████████████████████
███▀█████▄█▀███▀▀▀██████
██▀█████▄█▄██████████████
██▄▄████▀▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▄▄██████
█████▄▄▄██████████▀▄████
█████▀▄█▄██████▀█▄█████
███████▀▄█▀█▄██▀█▄███████
█████████▄█▀▄█▀▄█████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
▀█████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████████████████████████████
.
      OUR      
PARTNERS

.
█████████████████████████████████████████████████
████▄
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
████▀
▄█████████████████████████████
████████▀▀█████▀▀████████
█████▀█████████████▀█████
████████████████████████
███████████████▄█████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
███████████████▀█████████
████████████████████████
█████▄█████████████▄█████
████████▄▄█████▄▄████████
▀█████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████████████████████████████
.
   INVEST   
BITCOIN

.
█████████████████████████████████████████████████
████▄
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
████▀
BlackHatCoiner
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 7064


Farewell, Leo


View Profile
December 11, 2022, 08:24:28 PM
Merited by philipma1957 (1)
 #4

2048  = 0.048828125
2052  = 0.0244140625
2056  = 0.01220703125
Actually, these aren't part of the schedule exactly, because lowest value is 0.00000001 BTC, and reward is rounded down. So, the subsidy will become 0.04882812 BTC, then 0.02441406 BTC etc.

By slowing the cycle down the rewards continues at a reasonable pace for miners
Let's leave consensus aside for a moment (which isn't a fun variable; perhaps the most important, but let's do it for the sake of simplicity). Rewards might continue more smoothly for the miners, and security might rise as well, but the security cost per se remains the same. Miners don't create the value they're rewarded with. They tax the users. Either directly (transaction fees) or indirectly (block subsidy). If you mess with halvings, and increase their long-term subsidy, the users are going to pay for that, indirectly.

I also don't see how that helps lightning.

..JAMBLER.io..Create Your Bitcoin Mixing
Business Now for   F R E E 
▄█████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████▀████████████████████
███▀█████▄█▀███▀▀▀██████
██▀█████▄█▄██████████████
██▄▄████▀▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▄▄██████
█████▄▄▄██████████▀▄████
█████▀▄█▄██████▀█▄█████
███████▀▄█▀█▄██▀█▄███████
█████████▄█▀▄█▀▄█████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
▀█████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████████████████████████████
.
      OUR      
PARTNERS

.
█████████████████████████████████████████████████
████▄
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
████▀
▄█████████████████████████████
████████▀▀█████▀▀████████
█████▀█████████████▀█████
████████████████████████
███████████████▄█████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
███████████████▀█████████
████████████████████████
█████▄█████████████▄█████
████████▄▄█████▄▄████████
▀█████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████████████████████████████
.
   INVEST   
BITCOIN

.
█████████████████████████████████████████████████
████▄
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
████▀
garlonicon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 789
Merit: 1910


View Profile
December 11, 2022, 09:41:36 PM
Merited by philipma1957 (1), ABCbits (1)
 #5

Quote
By slowing the cycle down the rewards continues at a reasonable pace for miners
It is possible if you increase the block time from 10 to 20 minutes. But then, you need some kind of soft-fork to enforce the difficulty, because otherwise it will drop. So, it also means you will have difficulty retarget every 2016 blocks, so every 28 days, so around once per month.

Quote
and the incentive to use LN network to avoid fees on the chain is increase.
It is not. As long as you have default minimal fees set to 1000 satoshis per virtual kilobyte, it will remain the same. Imagine no basic block reward, and 1000 satoshis per virtual kilobyte: is it more profitable to use LN then?

Quote
cons
lack of consensus
Only if it would be a hard fork. But it could be a soft fork as well.

Quote
If we keep the same block speed (at ~10 minutes) and start doubling periods we will go over 21M bitcoin. Not good.
It would be a hard fork. Probably only introducing new coins in a backward-compatible way, such as UTXOs with zero satoshi, will be compatible-enough to be a soft-fork. But of course, then people can simply count them as zeroes. The same with any sidechains: all additional coins could be simply worth less, and then it won't be 1:1 peg.

Quote
If we slow down the blocks it will be easier to keep all the numbers right but then we may end up with an overly congested mempool as a rule, not an exception.
True, but people that want to increase LN usage, really need congested mempool. Because as long as there is a space, there is no reason to pay more than 1000 satoshis per virtual kilobyte, if everything will be included. More than that: if there is a lot of space, then it may be profitable to lower it from 1000 to 100 satoshis per kilobyte, because it will encourage users to make more transactions.

Also, I wonder why people totally forget about proposals like cut-through or about joining transactions, and they still focus on the size of the block, or counting transactions per second, instead of thinking more about compression.

Hold your horses before deploying blockchain-related things. You don't want to deploy SHA-1 collision without deploying hardened SHA-1. Once you reveal some code, and make it Open Source, there is no "undo" button. Once you share some idea, there is no way to erase it from reader's memory.
philipma1957 (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4074
Merit: 7591


'The right to privacy matters'


View Profile WWW
December 12, 2022, 02:00:05 AM
 #6

Quote
By slowing the cycle down the rewards continues at a reasonable pace for miners
It is possible if you increase the block time from 10 to 20 minutes. But then, you need some kind of soft-fork to enforce the difficulty, because otherwise it will drop. So, it also means you will have difficulty retarget every 2016 blocks, so every 28 days, so around once per month.

Quote
and the incentive to use LN network to avoid fees on the chain is increase.
It is not. As long as you have default minimal fees set to 1000 satoshis per virtual kilobyte, it will remain the same. Imagine no basic block reward, and 1000 satoshis per virtual kilobyte: is it more profitable to use LN then?

Quote
cons
lack of consensus
Only if it would be a hard fork. But it could be a soft fork as well.

Quote
If we keep the same block speed (at ~10 minutes) and start doubling periods we will go over 21M bitcoin. Not good.
It would be a hard fork. Probably only introducing new coins in a backward-compatible way, such as UTXOs with zero satoshi, will be compatible-enough to be a soft-fork. But of course, then people can simply count them as zeroes. The same with any sidechains: all additional coins could be simply worth less, and then it won't be 1:1 peg.

Quote
If we slow down the blocks it will be easier to keep all the numbers right but then we may end up with an overly congested mempool as a rule, not an exception.
True, but people that want to increase LN usage, really need congested mempool. Because as long as there is a space, there is no reason to pay more than 1000 satoshis per virtual kilobyte, if everything will be included. More than that: if there is a lot of space, then it may be profitable to lower it from 1000 to 100 satoshis per kilobyte, because it will encourage users to make more transactions.

Also, I wonder why people totally forget about proposals like cut-through or about joining transactions, and they still focus on the size of the block, or counting transactions per second, instead of thinking more about compression.

Here is the issue I see In a short time 2056 we are down to a tiny reward. Due to the 4 year ½ ing pattern.

by stretching to 28 day diff and keeping block size the same the main chain will get crowded fees will be higher. this is good for miners.

at the same time LN will get more attention since it lowers fees and allows scaling a lot of transaction.

I see it as a win win.

BTW

60/6 is a block every 10 minutes

my idea is

60/3 a block every 20 minutes

there are other possible numbers that are easy

60/5 is a block every 12 minutes

60/4 is a block every 15 minutes.

When you look at btc the 4 year ½ ing is causing rapid fire cycling in prices.

More leisurely time frames allow for slower cycle and less volatility.

Oh I used past 8 digits to calculate reward numbers because for btc to work either LN gets really big(they allow fraction of sats) or we go to 12 digits for paying on blockchain.

I look at scaling in the future and while  I will be 99 in 2056 . It looks like a possible disaster that we do not need to rush to get to.  

Some see LN fully taking over by 2056 I don’t see the meshing mechanisms in place at all.

It appears that to mesh LN the main chain needs 10 Places and LN could use 14.

You have an incentive to do LN by a factor of 10000 to 1.

and the main chain can have 1/100 sat .


but those are not on point with this thread.

▄▄███████▄▄
▄██████████████▄
▄██████████████████▄
▄████▀▀▀▀███▀▀▀▀█████▄
▄█████████████▄█▀████▄
███████████▄███████████
██████████▄█▀███████████
██████████▀████████████
▀█████▄█▀█████████████▀
▀████▄▄▄▄███▄▄▄▄████▀
▀██████████████████▀
▀███████████████▀
▀▀███████▀▀
.
 MΞTAWIN  THE FIRST WEB3 CASINO   
.
.. PLAY NOW ..
pooya87
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3402
Merit: 10434



View Profile
December 12, 2022, 05:13:13 AM
Merited by philipma1957 (1)
 #7

Quote
By slowing the cycle down the rewards continues at a reasonable pace for miners
It is possible if you increase the block time from 10 to 20 minutes. But then, you need some kind of soft-fork to enforce the difficulty, because otherwise it will drop. So, it also means you will have difficulty retarget every 2016 blocks, so every 28 days, so around once per month.
Block reward has nothing to do with difficulty adjustment period. You could halve that reward every 8 years and still readjust the difficulty every 2016 blocks. It also requires a hard fork to change these not a soft fork.

Quote
Only if it would be a hard fork. But it could be a soft fork as well.
It requires a hard fork because from year +4 to +8 the reward has to remain high whereas it is violating the existing consensus rules.
You may be able to reduce the period (eg. 4 to 2 years) with a soft fork not increase it.

Quote
True, but people that want to increase LN usage, really need congested mempool.
I disagree since quite the opposite is true. For increased LN usage you want normal mempool so that more people could easily open and close their channels any time they want.
The point of LN is to give users the ability to send virtually unlimited number of transactions without worrying about limitations of a capped block space (regardless of the block size).

..JAMBLER.io..Create Your Bitcoin Mixing
Business Now for   F R E E 
▄█████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████▀████████████████████
███▀█████▄█▀███▀▀▀██████
██▀█████▄█▄██████████████
██▄▄████▀▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▄▄██████
█████▄▄▄██████████▀▄████
█████▀▄█▄██████▀█▄█████
███████▀▄█▀█▄██▀█▄███████
█████████▄█▀▄█▀▄█████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
▀█████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████████████████████████████
.
      OUR      
PARTNERS

.
█████████████████████████████████████████████████
████▄
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
████▀
▄█████████████████████████████
████████▀▀█████▀▀████████
█████▀█████████████▀█████
████████████████████████
███████████████▄█████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
███████████████▀█████████
████████████████████████
█████▄█████████████▄█████
████████▄▄█████▄▄████████
▀█████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████████████████████████████
.
   INVEST   
BITCOIN

.
█████████████████████████████████████████████████
████▄
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
████▀
garlonicon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 789
Merit: 1910


View Profile
December 12, 2022, 09:29:04 AM
Merited by philipma1957 (2), vapourminer (1)
 #8

Quote
Block reward has nothing to do with difficulty adjustment period.
True, but block time is correlated with that. And as far as I understand, this proposal is about increasing the block time, not the amount of coins.

Quote
It requires a hard fork because from year +4 to +8 the reward has to remain high whereas it is violating the existing consensus rules.
In the current rules, there are no restrictions to the number of UTXOs. That means, if you are a miner, you can spam the network with as many zero satoshi outputs as you want. The only limits are physical, like the space on hard drives in full nodes, but there is no strict consensus limit on that.

Quote
For increased LN usage you want normal mempool so that more people could easily open and close their channels any time they want.
Changing channels is on-chain feature. If people want to stay longer inside LN, then they should be forced, because in other cases, they have no reason to do so. If you want to pay someone once, you will do that on-chain, by using a regular transaction. Also, if you have 1 BTC, then you won't pay 0.1% (100k sats) for some LN transaction, you will do that on-chain, and pay 1000 satoshis or even less than that.

So, dealing with channels require on-chain interaction. And as long as you cannot create, transact, and destoy a channel without touching on-chain coins at all, you have "a one and a half layer", not the true second layer. Also, on-chain you can send every coin to everyone else, you can form any direct connection. In LN, you are limited to existing channels, because changing that require touching the first layer, and then it is no more "inside LN".

To sum up: if you want to increase traffic "inside LN", then it should be more profitable to make a transaction "inside LN" than on-chain. And currently, if you assume a regular wallet, and 0.1% fees, then there is an upper bound of how many coins you can put in a channel, because by putting more, you will start to pay more fees than on-chain, and then it is more profitable to close the channel and create a regular on-chain payment, just because it is cheaper. When mempool is congested, it is profitable to pay 20 sats/vB once, than do that every transaction. But if there is a lot of space, then there is no reason to form channels, when making direct payments is cheaper than LN fees.

Hold your horses before deploying blockchain-related things. You don't want to deploy SHA-1 collision without deploying hardened SHA-1. Once you reveal some code, and make it Open Source, there is no "undo" button. Once you share some idea, there is no way to erase it from reader's memory.
ABCbits
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2828
Merit: 7327



View Profile
December 12, 2022, 11:37:31 AM
Merited by LoyceV (4), Welsh (2), philipma1957 (1), HmmMAA (1)
 #9

cons
lack of consensus

Another cons: you'll break expected behavior of all Bitcoin script which use block height as it's locktime.

Also, I wonder why people totally forget about proposals like cut-through or about joining transactions, and they still focus on the size of the block, or counting transactions per second, instead of thinking more about compression.

It has limited practical usage when user need to use compatible wallet, unless it can be done in non-interactive way.

.
.BLACKJACK ♠ FUN.
█████████
██████████████
████████████
█████████████████
████████████████▄▄
░█████████████▀░▀▀
██████████████████
░██████████████
████████████████
░██████████████
████████████
███████████████░██
██████████
CRYPTO CASINO &
SPORTS BETTING
▄▄███████▄▄
▄███████████████▄
███████████████████
█████████████████████
███████████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
███████████████████████
█████████████████████
███████████████████
▀███████████████▀
█████████
.
LoyceV
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3262
Merit: 16316


Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021


View Profile WWW
December 12, 2022, 12:08:53 PM
 #10

By slowing the cycle down the rewards continues at a reasonable pace for miners
and the incentive to use LN network to avoid fees on the chain is increase.
Is this your wish as a Bitcoin user, or as a Bitcoin miner? I'm not a miner, but as a user, I have no interest in less blocks. Confirmations already take longer than I want.

Quote
Opinions wanted on stretching the cycle from 4 to 8 years.
My opinion: don't do it. If anything, we need more block space, not less.

█▀▀▀











█▄▄▄
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
e
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
█████████████
████████████▄███
██▐███████▄█████▀
█████████▄████▀
███▐████▄███▀
████▐██████▀
█████▀█████
███████████▄
████████████▄
██▄█████▀█████▄
▄█████████▀█████▀
███████████▀██▀
████▀█████████
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
c.h.
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
▀▀▀█











▄▄▄█
▄██████▄▄▄
█████████████▄▄
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███░░█████████
███▌▐█████████
█████████████
███████████▀
██████████▀
████████▀
▀██▀▀
pooya87
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3402
Merit: 10434



View Profile
December 12, 2022, 12:59:40 PM
Merited by BlackHatCoiner (4), vapourminer (1), philipma1957 (1)
 #11

If people want to stay longer inside LN, then they should be forced, because in other cases, they have no reason to do so. If you want to pay someone once, you will do that on-chain, by using a regular transaction.
It is not only about frequency of a fixed number of people who open/close channels but it is also about the number of people who want to open or close a channel per day. For example we have a hundred users opening a channel every day who wouldn't want to close it in a long time, on-chain congestion makes it harder.
Bottom line is second layer works best as long as the main chain is operating "normally".

..JAMBLER.io..Create Your Bitcoin Mixing
Business Now for   F R E E 
▄█████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████▀████████████████████
███▀█████▄█▀███▀▀▀██████
██▀█████▄█▄██████████████
██▄▄████▀▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▄▄██████
█████▄▄▄██████████▀▄████
█████▀▄█▄██████▀█▄█████
███████▀▄█▀█▄██▀█▄███████
█████████▄█▀▄█▀▄█████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
▀█████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████████████████████████████
.
      OUR      
PARTNERS

.
█████████████████████████████████████████████████
████▄
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
████▀
▄█████████████████████████████
████████▀▀█████▀▀████████
█████▀█████████████▀█████
████████████████████████
███████████████▄█████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
███████████████▀█████████
████████████████████████
█████▄█████████████▄█████
████████▄▄█████▄▄████████
▀█████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████████████████████████████
.
   INVEST   
BITCOIN

.
█████████████████████████████████████████████████
████▄
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
████▀
philipma1957 (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4074
Merit: 7591


'The right to privacy matters'


View Profile WWW
December 12, 2022, 02:35:46 PM
 #12

Quote
Block reward has nothing to do with difficulty adjustment period.
True, but block time is correlated with that. And as far as I understand, this proposal is about increasing the block time, not the amount of coins.

Quote
It requires a hard fork because from year +4 to +8 the reward has to remain high whereas it is violating the existing consensus rules.
In the current rules, there are no restrictions to the number of UTXOs. That means, if you are a miner, you can spam the network with as many zero satoshi outputs as you want. The only limits are physical, like the space on hard drives in full nodes, but there is no strict consensus limit on that.

Quote
For increased LN usage you want normal mempool so that more people could easily open and close their channels any time they want.
Changing channels is on-chain feature. If people want to stay longer inside LN, then they should be forced, because in other cases, they have no reason to do so. If you want to pay someone once, you will do that on-chain, by using a regular transaction. Also, if you have 1 BTC, then you won't pay 0.1% (100k sats) for some LN transaction, you will do that on-chain, and pay 1000 satoshis or even less than that.

So, dealing with channels require on-chain interaction. And as long as you cannot create, transact, and destoy a channel without touching on-chain coins at all, you have "a one and a half layer", not the true second layer. Also, on-chain you can send every coin to everyone else, you can form any direct connection. In LN, you are limited to existing channels, because changing that require touching the first layer, and then it is no more "inside LN".

To sum up: if you want to increase traffic "inside LN", then it should be more profitable to make a transaction "inside LN" than on-chain. And currently, if you assume a regular wallet, and 0.1% fees, then there is an upper bound of how many coins you can put in a channel, because by putting more, you will start to pay more fees than on-chain, and then it is more profitable to close the channel and create a regular on-chain payment, just because it is cheaper. When mempool is congested, it is profitable to pay 20 sats/vB once, than do that every transaction. But if there is a lot of space, then there is no reason to form channels, when making direct payments is cheaper than LN fees.

same 21 million coins.

actually you are slowing the distribution of the remaining coins.

1) you want a crowded mempool to encourage nodes of LN
2) crowded mempool will mean some higher fees for miners
3) slower rewards being doled out  ie 72 blocks a day means less rewards for miners.
4) 2+3 kind of level out meaning miners do not get buried by switch.
5) 8 year ½ ing cycle reduces pressure

I say this since I have been around since 2012 and I see the force reduction of 4 years as okay but that we now are a bulky coin we don't need that speed of 4 years. The avalanche is started and I am attempting to slow it.

every time I look at this below (note my numbers from a early post)

"Okay.

We are scheduled for:

2024  = 3.12500000
2028  = 1.56250000
2032  = 0.78125000
2036  = 0.39062500
2040  = 0.19531250
2044  = 0.09765625
2048  = 0.04882812....5
2052  = 0.02441406....25
2056  = 0.01220703....125


How about

2024 = 3.12500000
2032 = 1.56250000
2040 = 0.78125000
2048 = 0.39062500
2056 = 0.19531250"


the second one looks easier to make it succeed.

the top one looks like a far more risky path to take.

please note I altered the 9th digits on since someone did mention them.

they are a sidebar issue which will need to be worked on.

My gut is the current speed of ½ ing is too fast.  no more complicated than that.

▄▄███████▄▄
▄██████████████▄
▄██████████████████▄
▄████▀▀▀▀███▀▀▀▀█████▄
▄█████████████▄█▀████▄
███████████▄███████████
██████████▄█▀███████████
██████████▀████████████
▀█████▄█▀█████████████▀
▀████▄▄▄▄███▄▄▄▄████▀
▀██████████████████▀
▀███████████████▀
▀▀███████▀▀
.
 MΞTAWIN  THE FIRST WEB3 CASINO   
.
.. PLAY NOW ..
philipma1957 (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4074
Merit: 7591


'The right to privacy matters'


View Profile WWW
December 12, 2022, 03:34:35 PM
 #13

My gut is the current speed of ½ ing is too fast.  no more complicated than that.

Why are you limiting yourself to ½?

Why not only 1 block per hour?
or only 1 block per day?
or only 1 block per week?
or only 1 block per month?

That would really force them to use LN or another offchain option.  Smiley
Once per month is all that banks need anyway.

Question for the PoW miners,
IF it was only one block per day, could the miner leave their asics off for 23 hours and only mine the hour the block was scheduled.
IF so would it not decrease the energy waste of PoW by a factor of 24X.
This would be more than enough to get the world governments off of btc case about energy waste for the next few years.
If it happened.  Smiley

I mentioned multiple numbers that are easy to use.

20 minute block times
15 minute block times
12 minute block times  all work

obviously you could do 30 minute to 60 minute but the change would be too much

As for power wasted most people have zero understanding of the power cost as they also do not understand the power economics of the world.

ie they think oil coal and natural gas are cheap and they think solar, wind and hydro are not that cheap.

As a person that has directly been involved in creating solar mining complexes BTC energy cost is not an issue.
proper government management of all power sources is the issue.

but the power cost issue is not this topic.

I am simply looking to slow the issue of the remaining BTC rewards ie 8 year 1/2 ing vs 4 year 1/2ing

▄▄███████▄▄
▄██████████████▄
▄██████████████████▄
▄████▀▀▀▀███▀▀▀▀█████▄
▄█████████████▄█▀████▄
███████████▄███████████
██████████▄█▀███████████
██████████▀████████████
▀█████▄█▀█████████████▀
▀████▄▄▄▄███▄▄▄▄████▀
▀██████████████████▀
▀███████████████▀
▀▀███████▀▀
.
 MΞTAWIN  THE FIRST WEB3 CASINO   
.
.. PLAY NOW ..
garlonicon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 789
Merit: 1910


View Profile
December 12, 2022, 03:40:38 PM
Merited by vapourminer (1), philipma1957 (1)
 #14

Quote
IF it was only one block per day, could the miner leave their asics off for 23 hours and only mine the hour the block was scheduled.
It is impossible to enforce that. You could say the same about Proof of Stake: "could the staker stop staking at all, and only create coins, where a new useful product or service is created?". Even in Proof of Stake it is impossible to issue coins only when needed. And guess what: even if there is no mining, it is still possible to create too many coins, and then it is suddenly needed to burn them. Usually, when altcoins are burned, it means they produced too many coins before.

Quote
IF so would it not decrease the energy waste of PoW by a factor of 24X.
It won't change. Currently, there is one block per 10 minutes. If it would be one block per 1440 minutes (one day), it would not decrease the amount of energy, it will only make a single block 144 times harder to mine, so the difficulty will be 144 times bigger (actually, it will be somewhat different, because of Poisson distribution and things like that, see whitepaper for more details).

Quote
This would be more than enough to get the world governments off of btc case about energy waste for the next few years.
It won't change, because it is not about the power, it is about the control. Even if Bitcoin will be mined only on CPUs, it will still be targeted, because it was in the past. If you wonder, what would happen, when the difficulty would be N times smaller, then just locate that point on the difficulty chart, and see articles from those times. Then you will notice that even in the old times people complained, that for example Bitcoin uses more energy than top 500 supercomputers combined.

Quote
15 minute block times
That was present in the prenet, with 30 days difficulty adjustments, and halvings every 100,000 blocks (so the whole supply was 20 millions, instead of 21 millions). Also, the basic block reward was 100 BTC in this test network.
Quote
Code:
int64 GetBlockValue(int64 nFees)
{
    int64 nSubsidy = 10000 * CENT;
    for (int i = 100000; i <= nBestHeight; i += 100000)
        nSubsidy /= 2;
    return nSubsidy + nFees;
}

unsigned int GetNextWorkRequired(const CBlockIndex* pindexLast)
{
    const unsigned int nTargetTimespan = 30 * 24 * 60 * 60;
    const unsigned int nTargetSpacing = 15 * 60;
    const unsigned int nIntervals = nTargetTimespan / nTargetSpacing;

Hold your horses before deploying blockchain-related things. You don't want to deploy SHA-1 collision without deploying hardened SHA-1. Once you reveal some code, and make it Open Source, there is no "undo" button. Once you share some idea, there is no way to erase it from reader's memory.
BlackHatCoiner
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 7064


Farewell, Leo


View Profile
December 12, 2022, 06:06:57 PM
Merited by pooya87 (2), vapourminer (1), philipma1957 (1)
 #15

Also, if you have 1 BTC, then you won't pay 0.1% (100k sats) for some LN transaction, you will do that on-chain, and pay 1000
satoshis or even less than that.
That sounds good. Lightning is for micro-payments. Transactions that move large amounts on-chain should be mostly those that fund the security.

Bottom line is second layer works best as long as the main chain is operating "normally".
Exactly, and I think we should highlight this. Second layer should work as long as main layer is workable and active. If the main layer isn't active, there's less demand for off-chain transactions (because 0 sat/vbyte is or can be acceptable). So, the natural state of the network is either a dead cryptocurrency (after the mainly-subsidy era) , or a very active main layer with users who've moved to second layer. That's the only thing that can realistically maintain security on the long term too.

..JAMBLER.io..Create Your Bitcoin Mixing
Business Now for   F R E E 
▄█████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████▀████████████████████
███▀█████▄█▀███▀▀▀██████
██▀█████▄█▄██████████████
██▄▄████▀▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▄▄██████
█████▄▄▄██████████▀▄████
█████▀▄█▄██████▀█▄█████
███████▀▄█▀█▄██▀█▄███████
█████████▄█▀▄█▀▄█████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
▀█████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████████████████████████████
.
      OUR      
PARTNERS

.
█████████████████████████████████████████████████
████▄
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
████▀
▄█████████████████████████████
████████▀▀█████▀▀████████
█████▀█████████████▀█████
████████████████████████
███████████████▄█████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
███████████████▀█████████
████████████████████████
█████▄█████████████▄█████
████████▄▄█████▄▄████████
▀█████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████████████████████████████
.
   INVEST   
BITCOIN

.
█████████████████████████████████████████████████
████▄
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
████▀
garlonicon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 789
Merit: 1910


View Profile
December 12, 2022, 06:36:58 PM
Merited by Welsh (5), philipma1957 (1)
 #16

Quote
That sounds good. Lightning is for micro-payments. Transactions that move large amounts on-chain should be mostly those that fund the security.
That also means LN won't grow above some point, counted in profitability. Unless transaction fees raise. And they can raise, when mempool will be more congested, not less.

Unless you want to raise a traffic by going into lower units than millisatoshis, like microsatoshis, nanosatoshis, and so on.

Quote
It is not only about frequency of a fixed number of people who open/close channels but it is also about the number of people who want to open or close a channel per day. For example we have a hundred users opening a channel every day who wouldn't want to close it in a long time, on-chain congestion makes it harder.
And why they want to open or close the channel?
1. Because they have to. As long as LN is a layer "one and a half", and not the true second layer. Because you cannot send coins to someone, who has no channel.
2. Because it is profitable. And when it is more profitable, when you have cheap on-chain transactions, and you can pay anyone directly? Or when it is expensive, and you prefer to pay on-chain once than N times?
Opening and closing channels, when it is cheap, makes sense only if you know in advance, that fees will raise, and that you will make a lot of transactions with connected parties. Otherwise, it is pointless, because you cannot predict in advance all cases, where someone will have no channel, so you cannot create that upfront. And guess what: if you predict it wrong, then it will be more expensive than using direct on-chain transaction, because then you have to pay for closing channels that you don't need (or you need to swap coins, and again, it can be also non-free).

Quote
Bottom line is second layer works best as long as the main chain is operating "normally".
Those second layers would never be needed if there would always be a lot of free space in blocks. Also, second layers could work better when mempool is congested, because if there is a lot of data, then there is a scaling problem to solve, and that forces people to invent new scaling methods, like cut-through, transaction joining, signatures joining, outputs joining into multisigs, and other scaling techniques, that could really solve that congestion (and only then they are really needed).

For example, if there is no address reuse, then we have better privacy, and nothing to compress, when it comes to repeated addresses. But when there is some address reuse, then it is bad for privacy, but at least it can be compressed, to make it easier to handle by full nodes (because you cannot force users to never reuse addresses, you can only make it easier to handle by compressing it). Also, we have a lot of history that cannot be deleted, but it should be at least compressed, when it is convenient (fortunately, compression is consensus-independent, so I hope that new versions will finally dominate, because their less space requirements will encourage people to upgrade).

Hold your horses before deploying blockchain-related things. You don't want to deploy SHA-1 collision without deploying hardened SHA-1. Once you reveal some code, and make it Open Source, there is no "undo" button. Once you share some idea, there is no way to erase it from reader's memory.
BlackHatCoiner
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 7064


Farewell, Leo


View Profile
December 12, 2022, 06:49:33 PM
 #17

That also means LN won't grow above some point, counted in profitability.
Indeed, but that's also natural. Lightning should serve the overwhelming demand of transactions. It's what the block space can't supply for.

Those second layers would never be needed if there would always be a lot of free space in blocks.
Exactly my point. (Even though, I think you meant unused space, not free space; there is always a cost)

But when there is some address reuse, then it is bad for privacy, but at least it can be compressed, to make it easier to handle by full nodes
Can you elaborate? How's address reuse helpful for scaling?

..JAMBLER.io..Create Your Bitcoin Mixing
Business Now for   F R E E 
▄█████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████▀████████████████████
███▀█████▄█▀███▀▀▀██████
██▀█████▄█▄██████████████
██▄▄████▀▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▄▄██████
█████▄▄▄██████████▀▄████
█████▀▄█▄██████▀█▄█████
███████▀▄█▀█▄██▀█▄███████
█████████▄█▀▄█▀▄█████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
▀█████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████████████████████████████
.
      OUR      
PARTNERS

.
█████████████████████████████████████████████████
████▄
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
████▀
▄█████████████████████████████
████████▀▀█████▀▀████████
█████▀█████████████▀█████
████████████████████████
███████████████▄█████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
███████████████▀█████████
████████████████████████
█████▄█████████████▄█████
████████▄▄█████▄▄████████
▀█████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████████████████████████████
.
   INVEST   
BITCOIN

.
█████████████████████████████████████████████████
████▄
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
████▀
odolvlobo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4270
Merit: 3159



View Profile
December 12, 2022, 08:18:46 PM
Merited by garlonicon (5), LoyceV (4), vapourminer (1)
 #18

Eventually, the subsidy will be 0. It cannot be avoided. I don't think that delaying the inevitable accomplishes anything.

By slowing the cycle down the rewards continues at a reasonable pace for miners

Slowing down the pace does not help the miners, and increasing the 21 million limit only subsidizes inefficient miners.


and the incentive to use LN network to avoid fees on the chain is increase.

Creating artificial incentives to use LN will only hurt Bitcoin and LN as the value derived from those incentives must be taken from someone.

Join an anti-signature campaign: Click ignore on the members of signature campaigns.
PGP Fingerprint: 6B6BC26599EC24EF7E29A405EAF050539D0B2925 Signing address: 13GAVJo8YaAuenj6keiEykwxWUZ7jMoSLt
garlonicon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 789
Merit: 1910


View Profile
December 12, 2022, 08:23:13 PM
Merited by Welsh (3), vapourminer (1)
 #19

Quote
Can you elaborate? How's address reuse helpful for scaling?
Address reuse is harmful for privacy. Many things that are helpful for privacy have negative effect on scaling, for example using many addresses, using many coins, making many transactions, etc. And that's why everything should focus on compression, because that's the whole problem. LN can compress things to some extent, but only sometimes, because it could have negative effect on scaling if you open and close some channel, by making two transactions, instead of one. Because you need on-chain interaction every time, when you want to introduce someone to LN, or detach someone from LN, we need more tools for on-chain transaction batching, because then it will be also profitable for miners (by batching transactions, they can fit more of them in one block, and better handle mempool congestion, without increasing block size).

Also, there is always a history. And users can be charged as usual (or even punished a little for address reuse), but it could be helpful for nodes if that kind of things will be compressed. And of course, any node can apply any kind of compression under the hood, but if it would be standardized, then it could have some positive effect on initial blockchain download, or even on things like sending blocks, if someone will spam the network with address reuse or other repeated patterns.

Hold your horses before deploying blockchain-related things. You don't want to deploy SHA-1 collision without deploying hardened SHA-1. Once you reveal some code, and make it Open Source, there is no "undo" button. Once you share some idea, there is no way to erase it from reader's memory.
hZti
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 642

Magic


View Profile
December 12, 2022, 08:24:37 PM
 #20

I dont see how a slower drop in mining reward would help any miner, except an unprofessional one. If you look at random people at the forum that buy one miner, they will definitely say it will help them. If you look at who is actually contributing the hashrate, than you are looking at multi million dollar companies that have business plans that are made to fit what the bitcoin network gives them as reward. So they won't even start their whole mining business if they can't make a profit this way.
About the 20 min block speed I would be super unhappy, because I already think the usual 30 min for 2 confirmation is to long and should be max 10 min (3 min per block)
Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!