Ninjastic
PostEdited versionsQuotes to this post
Next scheduled rescrape ... in 4 days
Version 1
Last scraped
Scraped on 28/05/2025, 11:54:35 UTC
Quote from: odolvlobo on May 28, 2025, 08:44:42 AM
Quote from: Satofan44 on May 27, 2025, 10:28:13 PM
Quote from: odolvlobo on May 27, 2025, 07:22:31 PM
This solution requires fractional satoshis. To make things simple, I propose dividing a satoshi into 100 million parts (because the demurrage cost is 1/100 million).
More complexity and more units is not desirable. Anyhow, if I understood you correctly your proposal will punish the best holders for simply holding? That is a terrible and radical change of incentives.

Quote from: odolvlobo on May 27, 2025, 07:22:31 PM
2. Lost coins and dust are eventually recovered.
Replace one type of confiscation with another? How do you know that my coins are lost, because I am not using them actively?  Roll Eyes

There are simpler ways to approach this, and I will give one example. You can introduce a primary flat miner fee, and retain the variable fee from the fee market on top of it. Let's say that we introduce a a flat fee of 100 satoshi, which as of today would be $0.11. At 3000 transactions per block, that is an extra 300 000 sats.

More complexity may be necessary, even though it is not desirable. Are you saying that none of the protocol changes currently being considered increase complexity?

My suggestion does not confiscate coins. Like yours, it imposes an additional transaction fee, but based on the age of the coins. There is no need to determine whether coins are "lost".

The purpose of "tail emission" is to guarantee revenue per block. Your suggestion of a flat fee does not accomplish that.
Fair, but when it comes specifically to units I am very against introducing anything. There is already too many being used, and most users have no idea what they mean. That being said, I don't see why I should pay more than someone else because I am a good little holder. For me, you are confiscating part of my holdings by forcing me to pay more over otherspeople who just started using Bitcoin. Whether it is done by actually taking themIs there any difference in practice if you take away 5% of coins from each address that has unmoved coins from 2010, or forcing me toif you make them pay a huge5% fee to use it, is again just semanticsmove them? No.

Is there any difference in practice if you takeWhether it is done by actually taking them away 5% of coins from each address that has unmoved coins from 2010, or if you mak themforcing me to pay a 5%huge fee to moveuse them? No, is again just semantics.
Original archived Re: Tail emission ideas that retain the 21 million limit
Scraped on 28/05/2025, 11:49:44 UTC
Quote from: odolvlobo on May 28, 2025, 08:44:42 AM
Quote from: Satofan44 on May 27, 2025, 10:28:13 PM
Quote from: odolvlobo on May 27, 2025, 07:22:31 PM
This solution requires fractional satoshis. To make things simple, I propose dividing a satoshi into 100 million parts (because the demurrage cost is 1/100 million).
More complexity and more units is not desirable. Anyhow, if I understood you correctly your proposal will punish the best holders for simply holding? That is a terrible and radical change of incentives.

Quote from: odolvlobo on May 27, 2025, 07:22:31 PM
2. Lost coins and dust are eventually recovered.
Replace one type of confiscation with another? How do you know that my coins are lost, because I am not using them actively?  Roll Eyes

There are simpler ways to approach this, and I will give one example. You can introduce a primary flat miner fee, and retain the variable fee from the fee market on top of it. Let's say that we introduce a a flat fee of 100 satoshi, which as of today would be $0.11. At 3000 transactions per block, that is an extra 300 000 sats.

More complexity may be necessary, even though it is not desirable. Are you saying that none of the protocol changes currently being considered increase complexity?

My suggestion does not confiscate coins. Like yours, it imposes an additional transaction fee, but based on the age of the coins. There is no need to determine whether coins are "lost".

The purpose of "tail emission" is to guarantee revenue per block. Your suggestion of a flat fee does not accomplish that.
Fair, but when it comes specifically to units I am very against introducing anything. There is already too many being used, and most users have no idea what they mean. That being said, I don't see why I should pay more than someone else because I am a good little holder. For me, you are confiscating part of my holdings by forcing me to pay more over others. Whether it is done by actually taking them away or forcing me to pay a huge fee to use it, is again just semantics.

Is there any difference in practice if you take away 5% of coins from each address that has unmoved coins from 2010, or if you mak them pay a 5% fee to move them? No.