1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
|
Return-Path: <aj@erisian.com.au>
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C69BC002D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 7 Jul 2022 22:06:25 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45F4242438
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 7 Jul 2022 22:06:25 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 45F4242438
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, LOTS_OF_MONEY=0.001, MONEY_NOHTML=2.499,
SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id hVqlN26bZVJw
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 7 Jul 2022 22:06:24 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 3478A414CC
Received: from azure.erisian.com.au (azure.erisian.com.au [172.104.61.193])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3478A414CC
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 7 Jul 2022 22:06:24 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from aj@azure.erisian.com.au (helo=sapphire.erisian.com.au)
by azure.erisian.com.au with esmtpsa (Exim 4.92 #3 (Debian))
id 1o9Zdc-00087R-BS; Fri, 08 Jul 2022 08:06:22 +1000
Received: by sapphire.erisian.com.au (sSMTP sendmail emulation);
Fri, 08 Jul 2022 08:06:14 +1000
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2022 08:06:14 +1000
From: Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <20220707220614.GA20899@erisian.com.au>
References: <mailman.9.1657195203.20624.bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
<CAHTn92wR+D=2FLAc7vhhm4kNT6NwDfyKdRj32=E9H3UJ4QcE+Q@mail.gmail.com>
<Ysbp2QclWW7NzfrS@petertodd.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: <Ysbp2QclWW7NzfrS@petertodd.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
X-Spam-Score-int: -18
X-Spam-Bar: -
Cc: John Carvalho <john@synonym.to>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2022 22:06:25 -0000
On Thu, Jul 07, 2022 at 10:12:41AM -0400, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> We should not imbue real technology with magical qualities.
That's much more fun if you invert it, and take it as a mission
statement. Advance technology sufficiently!
> The fact of the matter is that the present amount of security is about 1.=
7% of
> the total coin supply/year, and Bitcoin seems to be working fine. 1.7% is=
also
> already an amount low enough that it's much smaller than economic volatil=
ity.
>=20
> Obviously 0% is too small.
>=20
> There's zero reason to stress about finding an "optimal" amount. An amoun=
t low
> enough to be easily affordable, but non-zero, is fine. 1% would be fine; =
0.5%
> would probably be fine; 0.1% would probably be fine.
For comparison, 0.1% of 21M BTC per annum is 0.4 BTC per block, which
is about 50sat/vb if blocks are 800kvB on average. Doing that purely
with fees seems within the ballpark of feasibility to me.
50sat/vb for a 200vb tx (roughly the size of a 2-in, 2-out p2wpkh/p2tr
tx) is $2 at $20k/BTC, $10 at $100k/BTC, $100 at $1M/BTC etc.
If the current block reward of ~1.7% pa of 19M at a price of $20k funds
the current level of mining activity, then you'd expect a similar level
of mining activity as today with reward at 0.1% pa of 21M at a price
of ~$310k.
Going by the halving schedule, the block subsidy alone will remain above
0.1% of supply until we hit the 0.39 BTC/block regime, in 2036, at which
point it drops to ~0.0986% annualised. (I guess you could extend that by
four years if you're willing to assume more than 1.5% of bitcoin supply
has been permanently lost)
Cheers,
aj
|
