Erik Aronesty [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2022-07-11 📝 Original message:> > > Alternatively, ...

📅 Original date posted:2022-07-11
📝 Original message:>
>
> Alternatively, losses could be at a predictable rate that's entirely
> different to the one Peter assumes.
>

No, peter only assumes that there *is* a rate.

Regardless of what the rate is, if it is any value for which there exists
*any fixed central tendency*, tail emission is *evenually* non inflationary.

But you are correct about the other two things:

1. If people are improving custody faster than 1/(N(t)*P) than tail
emission can still be inflationary. This seems far-fetched, imo.

2. The rate will be somewhat stochastic ("black swan envets"). Plausible
(popular wallet loses keys in coding error), but also... "true no matter
what". And not really relevant to tail-emission being non-inflationary.
Over a long enough time period, even these events can be factored into a
fixed central tendency. Even if it's 100 years, etc.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220711/451e1d28/attachment-0001.html>;