Can tail emmision be a soft fork

[Wind_FURY]

Are you sure about that? That requires a hard fork, no?

Why do you think that Lightning Network with 1:1000 peg requires no hard fork, but 20,999,999,9769,0000 : 21,000,000,0000,0000 peg would suddenly require it? It is all about proportions, nothing more, nothing less. If they are constant, it is as good as inside LN. If they are volatile, then you can reach "tail supply", or "burn supply", it depends if you increase your numerator, or your denominator in "numerator : denominator" peg.

I don't know if that question should be taken seriously.

OK, but why? Because Lightning doesn't break the rules of the protocol/network. Would changing the size to bigger blocks not require a hard fork too? FrankAndBeans the 4D Chess Player would love to spread that disinforming narrative. Don't tell him about this topic.

 

Since you guys are talking so much about milli-satoshis and also the idea of being able soft fork for the purposes of a tail emmission, I just [edited out]

Wouldn't that be just "with the presumption" that a Satoshi would be worth at least a Dollar/near a Dollar? What value would that bring to the miners if a tail-emmission or an inflationary model, assuming it could get community consensus, would better incentivize the miners, immediately, after the fork?

I did not consider anything that I was saying to be related exactly to what dollar value that the satoshi might have, but sure there is a bit of a presumption that if more digits are needed, then the sub-units represented by those extra digits would likely need to have some kind of a value. .even if only fractions of a penny, just like a satoshi is fractions of a penny currently yet some folks using the lightning network believe that there is some kind of value in terms of adding three more digits to recognize 1/1000 of a satoshi,

Then why not simply use the Lightning Network?

I believe gmaxwell and achow should get in the topic and give us the plebs their opinions. I know someone will argue "Appeal to authority", no, it's merely asking and learning from the smartest people in the room.

[1714239466]

1714239466

[1714239466]

1714239466

[1714239466]

1714239466

[1714239466]

1714239466

[1714239466]

1714239466

[1714239466]

1714239466

[vjudeu]

Would changing the size to bigger blocks not require a hard fork too?

It depends, what do you mean by "bigger blocks", because inside Lightning Network, you don't have "blocks", and there is no mining. But if you want to change the size of the blocks in a backward-compatible way, you can do so with sidechains, because there are "blocks", and there is a "sidechain", which is different than in LN.

Also note that Segwit already did "changing the size to bigger blocks", and it was a soft-fork, so no hard-forks are needed in such cases.

I believe gmaxwell and achow should get in the topic and give us the plebs their opinions.

You don't have to trust me. You can see, how 1:1000 peg is implemented, and try writing your own M:N peg implementation, then you will see, how all of that is possible without any forks. And then, if you use M=1,N=1000, you will reach Lightning Network, but if you use different parameters, you can form a different network, with any properties you want. And if you change that proportions in a volatile way, you can have "tail supply", "burn supply", or any other model. It is all about building a network of nodes, that enforce the same consensus rules, and then it is all about translating "layer 2 coins" into "mainchain coins", and getting all needed signatures.

I don't know if that question should be taken seriously.

Why not? If Lightning Network will upgrade in the future to some constant 1:1,000,000 peg, and introduce microsatoshis, instead of millisatoshis, would you notice then, that you can technically introduce any proportions you want? As long as they are constant, it is not about "tail supply" at all, and everything is as good, as it is inside LN. The only dangerous thing is volatile peg, where you start taking coins from users, without their consent, by creating inflation. But then, using some hypothetical network, similar to LN, is "more honest", because then you can see exactly, what proportions are used to exchange coins between mainchain, and some second layer. While in hard-fork scenario, everything is hidden, and some people may not be aware, that newly produced coins would cause inflation, in the same way as many fiat users are unaware of that.

[Wind_FURY]

Would changing the size to bigger blocks not require a hard fork too?

It depends, what do you mean by "bigger blocks", because inside Lightning Network, you don't have "blocks", and there is no mining. But if you want to change the size of the blocks in a backward-compatible way, you can do so with sidechains, because there are "blocks", and there is a "sidechain", which is different than in LN.

Also note that Segwit already did "changing the size to bigger blocks", and it was a soft-fork, so no hard-forks are needed in such cases.

Because you said that it's possible to change the rules and add more decimal points in Bitcoin onchain through a soft fork, therefore, in that context, are you saying that it's possible to change the rules and actually make the block size bigger through a soft fork too?

I believe gmaxwell and achow should get in the topic and give us the plebs their opinions.

You don't have to trust me. You can see, how 1:1000 peg is implemented, and try writing your own M:N peg implementation, then you will see, how all of that is possible without any forks. And then, if you use M=1,N=1000, you will reach Lightning Network, but if you use different parameters, you can form a different network, with any properties you want. And if you change that proportions in a volatile way, you can have "tail supply", "burn supply", or any other model. It is all about building a network of nodes, that enforce the same consensus rules, and then it is all about translating "layer 2 coins" into "mainchain coins", and getting all needed signatures.

Nodes that forked away from the Bitcoin network because they're incompatible?

I don't know if that question should be taken seriously.

Why not?

I misread, I thought you said adding decimal points onchain doesn't require a hard fork, and that it could be done througn a soft fork?

If Lightning Network will upgrade in the future to some constant 1:1,000,000 peg, and introduce microsatoshis, instead of millisatoshis, would you notice then, that you can technically introduce any proportions you want? As long as they are constant, it is not about "tail supply" at all, and everything is as good, as it is inside LN. The only dangerous thing is volatile peg, where you start taking coins from users, without their consent, by creating inflation. But then, using some hypothetical network, similar to LN, is "more honest", because then you can see exactly, what proportions are used to exchange coins between mainchain, and some second layer.

How, currently, is there some "dishonesty" in the Lightning Network?

While in hard-fork scenario, everything is hidden, and some people may not be aware, that newly produced coins would cause inflation, in the same way as many fiat users are unaware of that.

I'm very confused. Hahaha. Pardon me ser, I'm still learning. Plus no one else is posting, does everyone else understand or is everyone as confused as me?

🤔

[vjudeu]

are you saying that it's possible to change the rules and actually make the block size bigger through a soft fork too?

Also note that Segwit already did "changing the size to bigger blocks", and it was a soft-fork, so no hard-forks are needed in such cases.

Nodes that forked away from the Bitcoin network because they're incompatible?

Millisatoshis are not compatible with on-chain consensus. You can have more than one second layer.

I misread, I thought you said adding decimal points onchain doesn't require a hard fork, and that it could be done througn a soft fork?

Well, you can change a lot of rules by using soft-fork, see: https://petertodd.org/2016/forced-soft-forks#radical-changes

How, currently, is there some "dishonesty" in the Lightning Network?

It is not about "current LN vs some other second layer". It is about "hard fork vs some other second layer". In that case, building a second layer is "more honest" than doing some hard-fork, because then people can explicitly see, how many "second layer coins" are mapped to how many "mainchain coins".

Plus no one else is posting, does everyone else understand or is everyone as confused as me?

If you want to be less confused, then write some code to see, what you can change, and what is coded as a hard consensus rule. You could be surprised, how many things can be changed by some second layers. Also, if you start with just two nodes, forming a channel, then you notice they can agree on any rules, no matter what the rest of the LN thinks about it. They have a direct channel, so they can implement any rules they want, and then build a bigger network, if that idea will spread.

[JayJuanGee]

FrankAndBeans the 4D Chess Player would love to spread that disinforming narrative. Don't tell him about this topic.

Someone is missing franky.   

Since you guys are talking so much about milli-satoshis and also the idea of being able soft fork for the purposes of a tail emmission, I just [edited out]

Wouldn't that be just "with the presumption" that a Satoshi would be worth at least a Dollar/near a Dollar? What value would that bring to the miners if a tail-emmission or an inflationary model, assuming it could get community consensus, would better incentivize the miners, immediately, after the fork?

I did not consider anything that I was saying to be related exactly to what dollar value that the satoshi might have, but sure there is a bit of a presumption that if more digits are needed, then the sub-units represented by those extra digits would likely need to have some kind of a value. .even if only fractions of a penny, just like a satoshi is fractions of a penny currently yet some folks using the lightning network believe that there is some kind of value in terms of adding three more digits to recognize 1/1000 of a satoshi,

Then why not simply use the Lightning Network?

I thought that we were talking about various ways that tail emission might be achieved and/or justified.. or justifiable as potentially something that might be a good thing... It may not matter that much what lightning network does as long as it is not incompatible with the main chain in terms of how many BTC had been recognized.. but sure, we might say, that we do not need more than 8 digits if we can transact on the lightning network for smaller units, but that still does not seem to address the 2048 issue in which mining rewards will go down to 9 digits, and so should that value smaller than 8 digits be recognized or ignored?

I believe gmaxwell and achow should get in the topic and give us the plebs their opinions. I know someone will argue "Appeal to authority", no, it's merely asking and learning from the smartest people in the room.

You are using the expression "appeal to authority" with a kind of literalness that seems to devolve into nuances of incorrect usage, and sure no problem that we might want to have (invite) some forum members who better "know technical things" to chime in on this particular topic.. someone other than your good buddy, franky..

I'm very confused. Hahaha. Pardon me ser, I'm still learning. Plus no one else is posting, does everyone else understand or is everyone as confused as me?
🤔

No.  You are the only one in the whole world who is confused.

Sorry to mention it.

[tromp]

the 2048 issue in which mining rewards will go down to 9 digits, and so should that value smaller than 8 digits be recognized or ignored?

There is no issue there. Satoshi decided 15 years ago that this fraction of a satoshi of block subsidy, which will be completely insignificant compared to the miner fees that make up most of the block reward, is to be ignored, as a natural consequence of having finite precision. Just like your computer computes 1/9 in 32-bit floating point as 0.11111111

[Wind_FURY]

are you saying that it's possible to change the rules and actually make the block size bigger through a soft fork too?

Also note that Segwit already did "changing the size to bigger blocks", and it was a soft-fork, so no hard-forks are needed in such cases.

Nodes that forked away from the Bitcoin network because they're incompatible?

Millisatoshis are not compatible with on-chain consensus. You can have more than one second layer.

That's actually why I was asking if adding sub-satoshis on-chain is possible through a soft-fork. Because in your other posts, or I might just be confused, it seemed like you said it was possible?

I misread, I thought you said adding decimal points onchain doesn't require a hard fork, and that it could be done througn a soft fork?

Well, you can change a lot of rules by using soft-fork, see: https://petertodd.org/2016/forced-soft-forks#radical-changes

Including sub-satoshis? That would be debatable, no?

How, currently, is there some "dishonesty" in the Lightning Network?

It is not about "current LN vs some other second layer". It is about "hard fork vs some other second layer". In that case, building a second layer is "more honest" than doing some hard-fork, because then people can explicitly see, how many "second layer coins" are mapped to how many "mainchain coins".

OK, it's good you made that clear.

Plus no one else is posting, does everyone else understand or is everyone as confused as me?

If you want to be less confused, then write some code to see, what you can change, and what is coded as a hard consensus rule.

Thanks for your advice. I'm curious, are you a Bitcoin developer? I'm learning a lot from you and I merely wanted to know if you have GitHub.

You could be surprised, how many things can be changed by some second layers. Also, if you start with just two nodes, forming a channel, then you notice they can agree on any rules, no matter what the rest of the LN thinks about it. They have a direct channel, so they can implement any rules they want, and then build a bigger network, if that idea will spread.

But that also means it's another client, another community, and therefore an off-chain layer that doesn't/cannot connect with the Lightning network directly, no?

FrankAndBeans the 4D Chess Player would love to spread that disinforming narrative. Don't tell him about this topic.

Someone is missing franky.  

Where is frankandbeans? Tell him I miss him.

Since you guys are talking so much about milli-satoshis and also the idea of being able soft fork for the purposes of a tail emmission, I just [edited out]

Wouldn't that be just "with the presumption" that a Satoshi would be worth at least a Dollar/near a Dollar? What value would that bring to the miners if a tail-emmission or an inflationary model, assuming it could get community consensus, would better incentivize the miners, immediately, after the fork?

I did not consider anything that I was saying to be related exactly to what dollar value that the satoshi might have, but sure there is a bit of a presumption that if more digits are needed, then the sub-units represented by those extra digits would likely need to have some kind of a value. .even if only fractions of a penny, just like a satoshi is fractions of a penny currently yet some folks using the lightning network believe that there is some kind of value in terms of adding three more digits to recognize 1/1000 of a satoshi,

Then why not simply use the Lightning Network?

I thought that we were talking about various ways that tail emission might be achieved and/or justified.. or justifiable as potentially something that might be a good thing... It may not matter that much what lightning network does as long as it is not incompatible with the main chain in terms of how many BTC had been recognized.. but sure, we might say, that we do not need more than 8 digits if we can transact on the lightning network for smaller units, but that still does not seem to address the 2048 issue in which mining rewards will go down to 9 digits, and so should that value smaller than 8 digits be recognized or ignored?

That's with the presumption that a Satoshi would be worth at least a Dollar/near a Dollar. How can we call something "justified" if merely based on a presumption? We hard-fork/take the risk of a hard-fork because we presumed? It's safer to use the Lightning Network.

I believe gmaxwell and achow should get in the topic and give us the plebs their opinions. I know someone will argue "Appeal to authority", no, it's merely asking and learning from the smartest people in the room.

You are using the expression "appeal to authority" with a kind of literalness that seems to devolve into nuances of incorrect usage, and sure no problem that we might want to have (invite) some forum members who better "know technical things" to chime in on this particular topic.. someone other than your good buddy, franky..

That's what forums are for - Education and Learning from other people.

Plus let frankandbeans chime in, my "good buddy" the big blocker and BCash lover.

I'm very confused. Hahaha. Pardon me ser, I'm still learning. Plus no one else is posting, does everyone else understand or is everyone as confused as me?
🤔

No.  You are the only one in the whole world who is confused.

Sorry to mention it.

👍

[vjudeu]

That's actually why I was asking if adding sub-satoshis on-chain is possible through a soft-fork. Because in your other posts, or I might just be confused, it seemed like you said it was possible?

Yes, it is possible, as well as many other things.

Including sub-satoshis? That would be debatable, no?

So what is a valid Bitcoin 2.0 block? It could be anything at all! For example, the inflation schedule can be changed to make the coin supply unlimited.

In that link I gave you, you can read, how it is possible to create a soft-fork, that could make infinite block rewards. And after reading that, you still have doubts, if sub-satoshis are possible? A lot of things are possible, including sub-satoshis. But if sidechains as a soft-fork were rejected, then I expect sub-satoshis will also be, which means you won't reach enough network support to successfully deploy that kind of soft-fork, even if technically you can do that, then practically people will simply disagree. And that means you are left with second-layer solutions, which requires no forks at all.

I'm curious, are you a Bitcoin developer?

Not yet. You can easily check all Pull Requests, and see exactly, what nicknames are used, and which users deploy changes into production. Everything is public, and you can easily see, that I am not yet there. Of course, there is always a possibility, that I could be one of those users, that submit changes anonymously, or use alt-accounts, but believe it or not, this is not the case.

I'm learning a lot from you and I merely wanted to know if you have GitHub.

I have it, but many things are private. Maybe I will publish more code in the future, we will see. But in the current state, I can still see some holes, and I don't want to deploy something, that will be turned into a scam, like many other projects were in the past. When it comes to blockchain-related development, your first version always have to be well-designed, because of backward-compatibility. And also, you need a lot of testing to cover many cases, because if your project will be valuable, then people will have a lot of incentive to attack it in every possible way.

My account is here: https://github.com/vjudeu/

As you can see, there is only "curves1000" project, that was needed to show some people, why elliptic curves have to be based on prime numbers. Other projects are now private, and some of them are outside GitHub, on other Git servers.

But that also means it's another client, another community, and therefore an off-chain layer that doesn't/cannot connect with the Lightning network directly, no?

Why not? If you can translate "your network transaction" into "LN transaction", then it can be connected. It is all about backward-compatibility. You can have something like that:

1. Satoshis on mainchain.
2. Millisatoshis inside LN.
3. Microsatoshis in your own second layer.

And then, as you can see, your network can still talk with LN, as long as it can convert "your microsatoshis" into "LN-based millisatoshis", exactly in the same way as LN can translate millisatoshis into satoshis, when talking with the mainchain. That means, you can have one mainchain, and a lot of second layers, and they can talk to each other, when things are backward-compatible.

[JayJuanGee]

the 2048 issue in which mining rewards will go down to 9 digits, and so should that value smaller than 8 digits be recognized or ignored?

There is no issue there. Satoshi decided 15 years ago that this fraction of a satoshi of block subsidy, which will be completely insignificant compared to the miner fees that make up most of the block reward, is to be ignored, as a natural consequence of having finite precision. Just like your computer computes 1/9 in 32-bit floating point as 0.11111111

No problem..  except that satoshi is not in charge of bitcoin...

and therefore, you engaged in a more proper use of the "appeal to authority" fallacy.

Since you guys are talking so much about milli-satoshis and also the idea of being able soft fork for the purposes of a tail emmission, I just [edited out]

Wouldn't that be just "with the presumption" that a Satoshi would be worth at least a Dollar/near a Dollar? What value would that bring to the miners if a tail-emmission or an inflationary model, assuming it could get community consensus, would better incentivize the miners, immediately, after the fork?

I did not consider anything that I was saying to be related exactly to what dollar value that the satoshi might have, but sure there is a bit of a presumption that if more digits are needed, then the sub-units represented by those extra digits would likely need to have some kind of a value. .even if only fractions of a penny, just like a satoshi is fractions of a penny currently yet some folks using the lightning network believe that there is some kind of value in terms of adding three more digits to recognize 1/1000 of a satoshi,

Then why not simply use the Lightning Network?

I thought that we were talking about various ways that tail emission might be achieved and/or justified.. or justifiable as potentially something that might be a good thing... It may not matter that much what lightning network does as long as it is not incompatible with the main chain in terms of how many BTC had been recognized.. but sure, we might say, that we do not need more than 8 digits if we can transact on the lightning network for smaller units, but that still does not seem to address the 2048 issue in which mining rewards will go down to 9 digits, and so should that value smaller than 8 digits be recognized or ignored?

That's with the presumption that a Satoshi would be worth at least a Dollar/near a Dollar. How can we call something "justified" if merely based on a presumption? We hard-fork/take the risk of a hard-fork because we presumed? It's safer to use the Lightning Network.

That hardly makes any sense to me that a satoshi would have to be worth a dollar or near a dollar in order for it to be worth it to recognize further digits.  You can keep repeating it, but it makes hardly any sense.

I doubt that any hardfork is necessary to recognize digits smaller than a satoshi.. but still like others said it might not be justifiable without a certain value.. I doubt that it a dollar and I even doubt that is a penny.. so even 1/1000 of a penny might be justifiable to recognize such further down digits.. but hey, I am just one person.  What do I know regarding what people want to do today as compared to what they might want to do in 2048 or times approaching 2048 when it might be considered if more than 8 digits might be justified to recognize on bitcoin's main chain.

I believe gmaxwell and achow should get in the topic and give us the plebs their opinions. I know someone will argue "Appeal to authority", no, it's merely asking and learning from the smartest people in the room.

You are using the expression "appeal to authority" with a kind of literalness that seems to devolve into nuances of incorrect usage, and sure no problem that we might want to have (invite) some forum members who better "know technical things" to chime in on this particular topic.. someone other than your good buddy, franky..

That's what forums are for - Education and Learning from other people.

Plus let frankandbeans chime in, my "good buddy" the big blocker and BCash lover.

That's the spirit!!!!!  Even though I know that he can be annoying sometimes, especially when he starts spreading misinformation.. but hey, we cannot necessarily pre-judge what he might say... even though surely requesting Maxwell or Chow seems probably better to the extent that they might have opinions on this topic or even consider the topic to be of enough importance to chime in.

[vjudeu]

I believe gmaxwell and achow should get in the topic and give us the plebs their opinions.

Well, you can read some older posts of gmaxwell about tail supply: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5405755.msg60542558#msg60542558

[BlackHatCoiner]

Would changing the size to bigger blocks not require a hard fork too?

Did SegWit require a hardfork? No. In similar manner you can increase the block size via softfork means. It's debatable if the incapability of the old nodes to verify the new transactions is considered backwards-compatible, but it can be technically implemented via softfork.

That's actually why I was asking if adding sub-satoshis on-chain is possible through a soft-fork. Because in your other posts, or I might just be confused, it seemed like you said it was possible?

It is possible by representing fractional satoshis in difficulty-like format, but again, I don't find any reason for this to happen. Even if Bitcoin went to $10M, 1 sat would still only worth 10 cents.

[JayJuanGee]

Would changing the size to bigger blocks not require a hard fork too?

Did SegWit require a hardfork? No. In similar manner you can increase the block size via softfork means. It's debatable if the incapability of the old nodes to verify the new transactions is considered backwards-compatible, but it can be technically implemented via softfork.

That's actually why I was asking if adding sub-satoshis on-chain is possible through a soft-fork. Because in your other posts, or I might just be confused, it seemed like you said it was possible?

It is possible by representing fractional satoshis in difficulty-like format, but again, I don't find any reason for this to happen. Even if Bitcoin went to $10M, 1 sat would still only worth 10 cents.

10¢ is nothing to sneeze at.

Just like from my point of view 1/1000 of a cent is also nothing to sneeze at, even though it is currently not very valuable.

There are likely various levels of bullishness in regards, to bitcoin's price potential, and even if we had all of the 21 million bitcoin, it would take around a 2.1 quadrillion market cap for each satoshi to be worth a dollar.. and there are many theorist that suggest the current total addressable market for bitcoin is ONLY a bit less than 1 quadrillion, while at the same time, many of us should be able to imagine how new technologies and inventions and even something like the invention, discovery and better ways of harnessing energy can increase current value. .maybe not infinitely, but in various exponential ways in order to make the total addressable market in the future of bitcoin to become much greater than the current addressable (but still not realize) market...

In other words bitcoin is likely right around only 1/2000 of the size of its total addressable market.. and therefore likely around only 1/10,000 of some of its future addressable market - whether reaching these potentials is possible in 25 to 50 years or maybe more possible 100 to 200 years or it could take even longer.. and sure there is already some built in anticipation of bitcoin's incentives structured out for another nearly 120 years when we get to the mining reward going below satoshi levels in around 2140.

[Wind_FURY]

Since you guys are talking so much about milli-satoshis and also the idea of being able soft fork for the purposes of a tail emmission, I just [edited out]

Wouldn't that be just "with the presumption" that a Satoshi would be worth at least a Dollar/near a Dollar? What value would that bring to the miners if a tail-emmission or an inflationary model, assuming it could get community consensus, would better incentivize the miners, immediately, after the fork?

I did not consider anything that I was saying to be related exactly to what dollar value that the satoshi might have, but sure there is a bit of a presumption that if more digits are needed, then the sub-units represented by those extra digits would likely need to have some kind of a value. .even if only fractions of a penny, just like a satoshi is fractions of a penny currently yet some folks using the lightning network believe that there is some kind of value in terms of adding three more digits to recognize 1/1000 of a satoshi,

Then why not simply use the Lightning Network?

I thought that we were talking about various ways that tail emission might be achieved and/or justified.. or justifiable as potentially something that might be a good thing... It may not matter that much what lightning network does as long as it is not incompatible with the main chain in terms of how many BTC had been recognized.. but sure, we might say, that we do not need more than 8 digits if we can transact on the lightning network for smaller units, but that still does not seem to address the 2048 issue in which mining rewards will go down to 9 digits, and so should that value smaller than 8 digits be recognized or ignored?

That's with the presumption that a Satoshi would be worth at least a Dollar/near a Dollar. How can we call something "justified" if merely based on a presumption? We hard-fork/take the risk of a hard-fork because we presumed? It's safer to use the Lightning Network.

That hardly makes any sense to me that a satoshi would have to be worth a dollar or near a dollar in order for it to be worth it to recognize further digits.  You can keep repeating it, but it makes hardly any sense.

Because it would be such a waste of time and energy to change the rules on-chain, and taking the risks of those changes. What use would sub-satoshis be on-chain if they're worth a miniscule amount per unit?

I doubt that any hardfork is necessary to recognize digits smaller than a satoshi..

Are you saying that if there proposals for sub-satoshi units, then it should be a soft fork, not a hard fork?

but still like others said it might not be justifiable without a certain value.. I doubt that it a dollar and I even doubt that is a penny.. so even 1/1000 of a penny might be justifiable to recognize such further down digits..

Then why not use the Lightning Network if an app or a project needs sub-satoshi units? It's there, it's ready.

but hey, I am just one person.  What do I know regarding what people want to do today as compared to what they might want to do in 2048 or times approaching 2048 when it might be considered if more than 8 digits might be justified to recognize on bitcoin's main chain.

That would be very low probability, in my opinion. Bitcoin's supply cap and units are ossifying towards 21,000,000 coins, with 8 decimal places.

I believe gmaxwell and achow should get in the topic and give us the plebs their opinions. I know someone will argue "Appeal to authority", no, it's merely asking and learning from the smartest people in the room.

You are using the expression "appeal to authority" with a kind of literalness that seems to devolve into nuances of incorrect usage, and sure no problem that we might want to have (invite) some forum members who better "know technical things" to chime in on this particular topic.. someone other than your good buddy, franky..

That's what forums are for - Education and Learning from other people.

Plus let frankandbeans chime in, my "good buddy" the big blocker and BCash lover.

That's the spirit!!!!!  Even though I know that he can be annoying sometimes, especially when he starts spreading misinformation.. but hey, we cannot necessarily pre-judge what he might say... even though surely requesting Maxwell or Chow seems probably better to the extent that they might have opinions on this topic or even consider the topic to be of enough importance to chime in.

I like him to post more because, the more he posts, the more stupid he looks and people are slowly seeing that.

[JayJuanGee]

Since you guys are talking so much about milli-satoshis and also the idea of being able soft fork for the purposes of a tail emmission, I just [edited out]

Wouldn't that be just "with the presumption" that a Satoshi would be worth at least a Dollar/near a Dollar? What value would that bring to the miners if a tail-emmission or an inflationary model, assuming it could get community consensus, would better incentivize the miners, immediately, after the fork?

I did not consider anything that I was saying to be related exactly to what dollar value that the satoshi might have, but sure there is a bit of a presumption that if more digits are needed, then the sub-units represented by those extra digits would likely need to have some kind of a value. .even if only fractions of a penny, just like a satoshi is fractions of a penny currently yet some folks using the lightning network believe that there is some kind of value in terms of adding three more digits to recognize 1/1000 of a satoshi,

Then why not simply use the Lightning Network?

I thought that we were talking about various ways that tail emission might be achieved and/or justified.. or justifiable as potentially something that might be a good thing... It may not matter that much what lightning network does as long as it is not incompatible with the main chain in terms of how many BTC had been recognized.. but sure, we might say, that we do not need more than 8 digits if we can transact on the lightning network for smaller units, but that still does not seem to address the 2048 issue in which mining rewards will go down to 9 digits, and so should that value smaller than 8 digits be recognized or ignored?

That's with the presumption that a Satoshi would be worth at least a Dollar/near a Dollar. How can we call something "justified" if merely based on a presumption? We hard-fork/take the risk of a hard-fork because we presumed? It's safer to use the Lightning Network.

That hardly makes any sense to me that a satoshi would have to be worth a dollar or near a dollar in order for it to be worth it to recognize further digits.  You can keep repeating it, but it makes hardly any sense.

Because it would be such a waste of time and energy to change the rules on-chain, and taking the risks of those changes. What use would sub-satoshis be on-chain if they're worth a miniscule amount per unit?

It seems that i have adequately covered this point.. so I am not sure how much more needs to be said.. people will likely come to differing conclusions regarding how much value is necessary to exist to recognize, and I would think right around 1/100 or maybe 1/1000 of a penny and you are thinking more in line with around a dollar which is about 100,000 x difference between us.. maybe i am a bit too low and you are a bit too high.. so maybe the number would be somewhere between those amounts.

I doubt that any hardfork is necessary to recognize digits smaller than a satoshi..

Are you saying that if there proposals for sub-satoshi units, then it should be a soft fork, not a hard fork?

I am not really saying that I know much of anything regarding hardforks and/or softforks, but it seems to me that there hardly are any changes to merely be recognizing digits further down than 8 digits... so I could not imagine that a hardfork would be necessarily .. and it seems like a pretty easy and even non-controversial change.. especially if the BTC price starts to go up to significant values and even the mining rewards start to seem to justify going 1 more digit every 4 years starting in 2048.

but still like others said it might not be justifiable without a certain value.. I doubt that it a dollar and I even doubt that is a penny.. so even 1/1000 of a penny might be justifiable to recognize such further down digits..

Then why not use the Lightning Network if an app or a project needs sub-satoshi units? It's there, it's ready.

but hey, I am just one person.  What do I know regarding what people want to do today as compared to what they might want to do in 2048 or times approaching 2048 when it might be considered if more than 8 digits might be justified to recognize on bitcoin's main chain.

That would be very low probability, in my opinion. Bitcoin's supply cap and units are ossifying towards 21,000,000 coins, with 8 decimal places.

It sounds to me like you are just making shit up.. regarding your ossification language.. but hey, if there is no perception of any need to recognize mining rewards into the 9th digits in 2048, then I doubt that I give too many shits.  We might have to reassess where people are at (including where the BTC price is at) when it comes closer to 2048. we are still 25 years out from there.. so a lot of thing can change in the next 25 years including what is the value of a satoshi and therefore what would be the value of units smaller than a satoshi (further dividing the satoshi in order to recognize the then mining reward, for example)..
 

I believe gmaxwell and achow should get in the topic and give us the plebs their opinions. I know someone will argue "Appeal to authority", no, it's merely asking and learning from the smartest people in the room.

You are using the expression "appeal to authority" with a kind of literalness that seems to devolve into nuances of incorrect usage, and sure no problem that we might want to have (invite) some forum members who better "know technical things" to chime in on this particular topic.. someone other than your good buddy, franky..

That's what forums are for - Education and Learning from other people.

Plus let frankandbeans chime in, my "good buddy" the big blocker and BCash lover.

That's the spirit!!!!!  Even though I know that he can be annoying sometimes, especially when he starts spreading misinformation.. but hey, we cannot necessarily pre-judge what he might say... even though surely requesting Maxwell or Chow seems probably better to the extent that they might have opinions on this topic or even consider the topic to be of enough importance to chime in.

I like him to post more because, the more he posts, the more stupid he looks and people are slowly seeing that.

That does not make much if any sense.  He must not yet know about this thread.

[Wind_FURY]

but still like others said it might not be justifiable without a certain value.. I doubt that it a dollar and I even doubt that is a penny.. so even 1/1000 of a penny might be justifiable to recognize such further down digits..

Then why not use the Lightning Network if an app or a project needs sub-satoshi units? It's there, it's ready.

but hey, I am just one person.  What do I know regarding what people want to do today as compared to what they might want to do in 2048 or times approaching 2048 when it might be considered if more than 8 digits might be justified to recognize on bitcoin's main chain.

That would be very low probability, in my opinion. Bitcoin's supply cap and units are ossifying towards 21,000,000 coins, with 8 decimal places.

It sounds to me like you are just making shit up.. regarding your ossification language.. but hey, if there is no perception of any need to recognize mining rewards into the 9th digits in 2048, then I doubt that I give too many shits.  We might have to reassess where people are at (including where the BTC price is at) when it comes closer to 2048. we are still 25 years out from there.. so a lot of thing can change in the next 25 years including what is the value of a satoshi and therefore what would be the value of units smaller than a satoshi (further dividing the satoshi in order to recognize the then mining reward, for example)..

But currently, am I? Haven't you been observing what's going on in the network in matters of development, proposals, and what changes are made in the protocol? Do you believe that the longer Bitcoin keeps chugging along, the more the Core Developers, the Economic Majority, and the large investors will be open to such changes like increasing the total supply, or the block size?

Some parts of the network are ossifying/becoming impossible to change/update. Plus 21,000,000 Bitcoins has become like a social contract. Breaking it might have consequences.

I believe gmaxwell and achow should get in the topic and give us the plebs their opinions. I know someone will argue "Appeal to authority", no, it's merely asking and learning from the smartest people in the room.

You are using the expression "appeal to authority" with a kind of literalness that seems to devolve into nuances of incorrect usage, and sure no problem that we might want to have (invite) some forum members who better "know technical things" to chime in on this particular topic.. someone other than your good buddy, franky..

That's what forums are for - Education and Learning from other people.

Plus let frankandbeans chime in, my "good buddy" the big blocker and BCash lover.

That's the spirit!!!!!  Even though I know that he can be annoying sometimes, especially when he starts spreading misinformation.. but hey, we cannot necessarily pre-judge what he might say... even though surely requesting Maxwell or Chow seems probably better to the extent that they might have opinions on this topic or even consider the topic to be of enough importance to chime in.

I like him to post more because, the more he posts, the more stupid he looks and people are slowly seeing that.

That does not make much if any sense.  He must not yet know about this thread.

It's not about this topic, it's about all the topics where he posts.

 

[JayJuanGee]

but still like others said it might not be justifiable without a certain value.. I doubt that it a dollar and I even doubt that is a penny.. so even 1/1000 of a penny might be justifiable to recognize such further down digits..

Then why not use the Lightning Network if an app or a project needs sub-satoshi units? It's there, it's ready.

but hey, I am just one person.  What do I know regarding what people want to do today as compared to what they might want to do in 2048 or times approaching 2048 when it might be considered if more than 8 digits might be justified to recognize on bitcoin's main chain.

That would be very low probability, in my opinion. Bitcoin's supply cap and units are ossifying towards 21,000,000 coins, with 8 decimal places.

It sounds to me like you are just making shit up.. regarding your ossification language.. but hey, if there is no perception of any need to recognize mining rewards into the 9th digits in 2048, then I doubt that I give too many shits.  We might have to reassess where people are at (including where the BTC price is at) when it comes closer to 2048. we are still 25 years out from there.. so a lot of thing can change in the next 25 years including what is the value of a satoshi and therefore what would be the value of units smaller than a satoshi (further dividing the satoshi in order to recognize the then mining reward, for example)..

But currently, am I? Haven't you been observing what's going on in the network in matters of development, proposals, and what changes are made in the protocol? Do you believe that the longer Bitcoin keeps chugging along, the more the Core Developers, the Economic Majority, and the large investors will be open to such changes like increasing the total supply, or the block size?

Yeah.. but we are not talking about changing the size.  We are talking about recognizing the 9th digit in 2048, the 10th digit in 2052, the 11th digit in 2056.. etc etc.. and it does not even seem very controversial.. especially if there were to be some kind of meaningful software that gets implemented and the peeps just start to run it.. ¡Viola!!!   softfork implemented.

Some parts of the network are ossifying/becoming impossible to change/update. Plus 21,000,000 Bitcoins has become like a social contract. Breaking it might have consequences.

You might be talking about increasing the number of coins.  I am not.  Increasing the recognized digits does not increase the number of coins.

Sure part of this topic is the idea of "tail emissions," which would be increasing the number of coins, but personally, I am not even talking about that part..

By the way, I agree with the overall idea that increasing the number of coins is not likely going to be very acceptable by hardly anyone already in bitcoin, and that idea had already been quite strong from the beginning of bitcoin, so hard to even hypothesize that anyone would want to change that or even consider scenarios that increasing the number of coins would be justifiable.. even if it might be through some kind of a fixed tail emissions..

I believe gmaxwell and achow should get in the topic and give us the plebs their opinions. I know someone will argue "Appeal to authority", no, it's merely asking and learning from the smartest people in the room.

You are using the expression "appeal to authority" with a kind of literalness that seems to devolve into nuances of incorrect usage, and sure no problem that we might want to have (invite) some forum members who better "know technical things" to chime in on this particular topic.. someone other than your good buddy, franky..

That's what forums are for - Education and Learning from other people.

Plus let frankandbeans chime in, my "good buddy" the big blocker and BCash lover.

That's the spirit!!!!!  Even though I know that he can be annoying sometimes, especially when he starts spreading misinformation.. but hey, we cannot necessarily pre-judge what he might say... even though surely requesting Maxwell or Chow seems probably better to the extent that they might have opinions on this topic or even consider the topic to be of enough importance to chime in.

I like him to post more because, the more he posts, the more stupid he looks and people are slowly seeing that.

That does not make much if any sense.  He must not yet know about this thread.

It's not about this topic, it's about all the topics where he posts.
 

To me, it still does not make any sense.. and so maybe it is just me?

[vjudeu]

You might be talking about increasing the number of coins.  I am not.  Increasing the recognized digits does not increase the number of coins.

Huh? So, tell me, what do you mean: do you want to increase the number of coins from 20,999,999,9769,0000 satoshis into 21,000,000,0000,0000 satoshis or not. Because, guess what, those fractions of satoshis, that will be rounded down, can be summed, and then we talk about 0.0231 BTC being produced because of those fractions.

But yes, if your answer is "just keep that 20,999,999,9769,0000", then things are much easier. Because you have three additional decimal places inside Lightning Network, here and now, without any forks, and without adding 0.0231 BTC (or rather, 0.02307060 BTC, if no further expansion is planned).

I hope some Sage script will help you:

Code:

total=0
coin=10000*10000
millisatoshis=1000
basic=50*coin*millisatoshis
blocks=210*1000
while(basic>0):
    total+=basic*blocks
    basic//=2
print(total)

Then, put "millisatoshis=1" to get the current amount of coins. Put "millisatoshis=1000" if you want to see, how many coins LN could introduce, if they would decide to increase the numbers. And if you expand it to infinity, without any truncation, like you see in "basic//=2", and if you guarantee that "basic" is always even, then you will really reach that 21 million coins.

[JayJuanGee]

You might be talking about increasing the number of coins.  I am not.  Increasing the recognized digits does not increase the number of coins.

Huh? So, tell me, what do you mean: do you want to increase the number of coins from 20,999,999,9769,0000 satoshis into 21,000,000,0000,0000 satoshis or not. Because, guess what, those fractions of satoshis, that will be rounded down, can be summed, and then we talk about 0.0231 BTC being produced because of those fractions.

But yes, if your answer is "just keep that 20,999,999,9769,0000", then things are much easier. Because you have three additional decimal places inside Lightning Network, here and now, without any forks, and without adding 0.0231 BTC (or rather, 0.02307060 BTC, if no further expansion is planned).

I hope some Sage script will help you:

Code:

total=0
coin=10000*10000
millisatoshis=1000
basic=50*coin*millisatoshis
blocks=210*1000
while(basic>0):
    total+=basic*blocks
    basic//=2
print(total)

Then, put "millisatoshis=1" to get the current amount of coins. Put "millisatoshis=1000" if you want to see, how many coins LN could introduce, if they would decide to increase the numbers. And if you expand it to infinity, without any truncation, like you see in "basic//=2", and if you guarantee that "basic" is always even, then you will really reach that 21 million coins.

I don't disagree with anything that you are saying vjudeu because I understand the idea that 21 million will never be reached, except in the hypothetical of infinite digits.. yet even if an extra digit is added every 4 years starting from 2048, I cannot see why any of it really matters, even if bitcoin might end up lasting another 10,000 years until the year 12048, and then by that time how many more digits would we have?  And would it even be necessary to continue adding another digit every 4 years after a certain point maybe it would not be worth it.

So if bitcoin were to continue to exist 10,000 years after 2,048, then every 4 years another digit would be added, then that would be "only" another 2,500 digits... at some point it seems like it would not be worth it.. but it is difficult to say at which point without seeing how bitcoin plays out in terms of its various human interactions in the coming 10, 20, 50, 100, 1,000 and more years prior to speculating out 10,000 years to 12048 which is way too far out there, anyhow.  I think that it partly goes to the problem of repairing the plane while it is flying but at the same time, we should not be adding some of the features until they are needed anyhow, and we are not going to know exactly which pieces might or might not be needed, so there will be some needs to add the parts (and pieces) as bitcoin goes rather than being to specific about its trajectory before it happens.

[vjudeu]

I cannot see why any of it really matters

Because it is backward-incompatible, if you implement it in the simplest possible way. Maybe I should display it more graphically:

Code:

50.00000000
25.00000000
12.50000000
 6.25000000
 3.12500000
 1.56250000
 0.78125000
 0.39062500
 0.19531250
 0.09765625

 0.048828120
 0.048828125

The question is: Do you want to keep block reward as 0.04882812 BTC, or do you want to increase precision by one bit, and give every miner 0.04882812,5 BTC, and consequently, increase the amount of coins in circulation, by printing half of the satoshi in every block, for the next 210,000 blocks, which will produce additional 105,000 satoshis during those four years?

So yes, if your answer is "miners should receive 0.04882812,5 BTC, because 0.09765625 BTC divided by two is exactly that", then I have bad news: that kind of change will increase the supply by this half of satoshi in every block, for the next four years (and will increase by more than that in the next years).

[JayJuanGee]

I cannot see why any of it really matters

Because it is backward-incompatible, if you implement it in the simplest possible way. Maybe I should display it more graphically:

Code:

50.00000000
25.00000000
12.50000000
 6.25000000
 3.12500000
 1.56250000
 0.78125000
 0.39062500
 0.19531250
 0.09765625

 0.048828120
 0.048828125

The question is: Do you want to keep block reward as 0.04882812 BTC, or do you want to increase precision by one bit, and give every miner 0.04882812,5 BTC, and consequently, increase the amount of coins in circulation, by printing half of the satoshi in every block, for the next 210,000 blocks, which will produce additional 105,000 satoshis during those four years?

So yes, if your answer is "miners should receive 0.04882812,5 BTC, because 0.09765625 BTC divided by two is exactly that", then I have bad news: that kind of change will increase the supply by this half of satoshi in every block, for the next four years (and will increase by more than that in the next years).

I will admit that I might not understand your point because, and maybe to some extent we are arguing about semantics.

I understand the difference between what is expected to be issued versus what actually would end up being recognized as issued if further digits beyond the first 8 were to be recognized starting from 2048, but it still does not fundamentally increase the supply - that is currently existing..

...but yeah, the expected supply ends up increasing, but in my thinking still seems to play out like a big so what because it is within the parameters of expectations of what could happen and stays within the math formula that was originally envisioned, but merely getting carried out by recognizing digits further down the chain.. and so then even in 2140, the mining reward continues after it has become sub-satoshi levels per each 10 minutes, but still those rewards would add up to more than 1 satoshi if considering the daily issuance or the yearly issuances or whatever other timeframe that we might want to consider in terms of that future issuance.. the issuance that is already there but not being recognized by the current software...

...so I might be too dumb, but I still don't consider those further digits as new supply even if they are adding up to greater than satoshi units when they are added over multiple blocks, and again, maybe we are arguing about semantics because I surely understand the point that you are making, but still I don't think that the more coins resulting from the sub satoshi recognition of coins matters if we were to label it as new recognized emissions or if we were to label it as staying within the rules while at the same time recognition of already existing emissions or whatever we choose to call it... we know that the coins will not go above 21 million under either of those kinds of formulations no matter what we call it because it is just a matter of continuing with the already agreed to pattern and merely recognizing coins of smaller sizes that end up adding up to larger sizes in the aggregate. .but still seems like a big so what that is more of a good thing than a bad thing..  and I see no meaningful change that prejudices anyone and I don't even understand why it could not be backward compatible. to merely start to recognize (in 2048 and thereafter) further digits beyond the contemplated 8 below the decimal place.