Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2022-07-11 📝 Original message:On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at ...
📅 Original date posted:2022-07-11
📝 Original message:On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 02:01:09AM +0200, James MacWhyte wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 12:26 AM Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:
>
> > Anyway, designing protocols for "price go up forever" hopium is a bad idea.
> >
>
> I'm quite disappointed that this is what you've reduced my argument to. The
> price doesn't need hopium; if it stays between where it is now and the all
> time high, that is enough to make mining rewards appealing.
>
> Anyway, once the LA dinner rush ends at 8PM it is already noon in Tokyo.
> The Pacific is big, but not *that* big.
>
> Certainly we should be designing protocols in anticipation of increased
> adoption, and not assuming the world will always be exactly as it is today?
We should design protocols that do reasonably well in *both* scenarios. Because
the future is unknown. Hell, I won't be surprised if further developments come
along that reduce demand for on-chain txs even further.
The fact is basing security budget in part on the total value of the coin being
secured very cleanly solves the problem of ensuring that there is sufficient
mining reward. Similarly, we also have to plan for the potential environment
where fee demand is very high. And we've done a good job of that, including
Lightning, replace-by-fee, etc.
--
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220711/4918b612/attachment-0001.sig>;
📝 Original message:On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 02:01:09AM +0200, James MacWhyte wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 12:26 AM Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:
>
> > Anyway, designing protocols for "price go up forever" hopium is a bad idea.
> >
>
> I'm quite disappointed that this is what you've reduced my argument to. The
> price doesn't need hopium; if it stays between where it is now and the all
> time high, that is enough to make mining rewards appealing.
>
> Anyway, once the LA dinner rush ends at 8PM it is already noon in Tokyo.
> The Pacific is big, but not *that* big.
>
> Certainly we should be designing protocols in anticipation of increased
> adoption, and not assuming the world will always be exactly as it is today?
We should design protocols that do reasonably well in *both* scenarios. Because
the future is unknown. Hell, I won't be surprised if further developments come
along that reduce demand for on-chain txs even further.
The fact is basing security budget in part on the total value of the coin being
secured very cleanly solves the problem of ensuring that there is sufficient
mining reward. Similarly, we also have to plan for the potential environment
where fee demand is very high. And we've done a good job of that, including
Lightning, replace-by-fee, etc.
--
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220711/4918b612/attachment-0001.sig>;