HODL Tax Proposal

HODL Tax Proposal
2024-08-01 21:59 ` José Edil Guimarães de Medeiros
                   ` (3 more replies)
  
From: Richard Greaser @ 2024-08-01 21:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bitcoin Development Mailing List


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 811 bytes --]

Hi everyone, 

It has become apparent to me that there is an issue where users of the 
network holding their coins, are not adding value to the network. 

As miners continue to get squeezed post halving, they would benefit 
tremendously from fees being taken from individuals refusing to move their 
coins, providing increased security to the network. 

I have written out a proposal more in depth and is attached below. 

-- 


 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
From: Christian Riley @ 2024-08-01 21:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Richard Greaser;  Bitcoin Development Mailing List

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/html, Size: 3398 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2024-08-01 21:59 ` 
                   ` 
  
From: Richard Greaser @ 2024-08-01 21:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bitcoin Development Mailing List


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 811 bytes --]

Hi everyone, 

It has become apparent to me that there is an issue where users of the 
network holding their coins, are not adding value to the network. 

As miners continue to get squeezed post halving, they would benefit 
tremendously from fees being taken from individuals refusing to move their 
coins, providing increased security to the network. 

I have written out a proposal more in depth and is attached below. 

-- 


 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
* 
  2024-08-01 21:03 [bitcoindev] HODL Tax Proposal Richard Greaser

  2024-08-02  0:28   ` Keagan McClelland
  2024-08-01 23:38 ` 
                   ` 
  3 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: José Edil Guimarães de Medeiros @ 2024-08-01 21:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Richard Greaser;  Bitcoin Development Mailing List

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/html, Size: 3126 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[|nested] 10+ messages in thread
2024-08-01 21:03 [bitcoindev] HODL Tax Proposal Richard Greaser
  2024-08-01 21:59 ` José Edil Guimarães de Medeiros
  2024-08-01 23:38 ` George Burke

  2024-08-02  8:45 ` [bitcoindev] " Garlo Nicon
  
From: Keagan McClelland @ 2024-08-02  0:12 UTC ( / )
  To: Richard Greaser;  Bitcoin Development Mailing List



This is never going to happen.

While demurrage has been proposed before and may ultimately be a
consideration that the Bitcoin users want to ensure that costs are borne
fairly by the different use cases, this mechanism is somewhat laughable.

The proposal you present also seems to reflect a deep misunderstanding of
how the Bitcoin protocol works:
1. Self assigning a bip number defies the bip assignment process and claims
a level of legitimacy that this proposal does not have.
2. Bitcoin for the most part does not really understand "days". There is a
timestamping mechanism that is used to reconcile difficulty adjustment
periods with the targeted time, but this is not something that can be more
widely used.
3. The way that "balances" are tracked and audited by Bitcoin nodes does
not lend itself easily to being just "deducted from"
4. You cannot "automatically deduct" a fee from an "address". Addresses
don't technically exist at the protocol level.
5. Miners do not "contribute proportionally" to computational work of
finding a block. There's the winner, and then everyone else.
6. Bitcoin cannot and will not make any legal or jurisdictional
considerations whatsoever when considering design choices.
7. Dennis Porter is irrelevant and does not have any authority to grant or
withhold "permission"
8. This proposal, like all demurrage proposals, clearly has negative
tradeoffs to be considered.
9. Centrally planning the price and inactivity period of demurrage is
antithetical to Bitcoin's decentralized market design mechanisms in use
thus far.

Stick to journalism. Maybe learn about Bitcoin a bit before trying to
extract the wealth of savers.

Keags

On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 2:13 PM Richard Greaser <thebitcoinbugle@gmail•com>
wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> It has become apparent to me that there is an issue where users of the
> network holding their coins, are not adding value to the network.
>
> As miners continue to get squeezed post halving, they would benefit
> tremendously from fees being taken from individuals refusing to move their
> coins, providing increased security to the network.
>
> I have written out a proposal more in depth and is attached below.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups•com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/6512db18-bd15-462e-92fd-7549b5e885e7n%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/6512db18-bd15-462e-92fd-7549b5e885e7n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>

-- 

2024-08-01 21:59 ` José Edil Guimarães de Medeiros

  2024-08-02  1:19     ` Jimmy Song
  
From: Keagan McClelland @ 2024-08-02  0:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: José Edil Guimarães de Medeiros
  Cc: Richard Greaser, Bitcoin Development Mailing List

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3893 bytes --]

Hypothetically miners could attempt to adopt a mining/relay policy wherein
they consider the age of the utxo being spent and factor that into the
feerate they consider when accepting the transaction into their block
template. However this would be an opt-in mechanism and miners can choose
to not take this into consideration when making the choice to mine the
transaction or not. If enough hashpower adopted this policy, you could end
up with a de-facto demurrage tax. This also means that you can do this
without a consensus fork if there was appetite for it.

However, I suspect there will be extreme resistance to this proposal and it
is unlikely that miners would intentionally leave otherwise-good fees on
the table simply because they want to play prisoners dilemma games where
they lose fees to the competition.

Keags

On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 5:18 PM José Edil Guimarães de Medeiros <
jose.edil@gmail•com> wrote:

> Not sure if I should consider this a joke after the president of bitcoin
> thing, but I just got curious about a basic technical detail and wanted to
> stress the concept.
>
> Since the value "tokens" in Bitcoin are the utxos, outputs from
> transactions that have not been spent in another transaction, and since the
> sole purpose of the utxos are to atomically serve as input to a subsequent
> transaction, how do you proposed to "tax" them?
>
> I mean, let's say someone sent me 1 BTC to address X by building a simple
> p2pkh transaction with the address I provided. To move that 1 BTC mean to
> authorize it as an input to a new transaction. In principle, that can only
> be done by me producing a valid signature using a private key.
>
> Let's say I'm one of those infamous holders. How do you propose the tax to
> be implemented?
>
> All the best.
> --
> E...
>
> On 1 Aug 2024, at 18:13, Richard Greaser <thebitcoinbugle@gmail•com>
> wrote:
>
> ﻿Hi everyone,
>
> It has become apparent to me that there is an issue where users of the
> network holding their coins, are not adding value to the network.
>
> As miners continue to get squeezed post halving, they would benefit
> tremendously from fees being taken from individuals refusing to move their
> coins, providing increased security to the network.
>
> I have written out a proposal more in depth and is attached below.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups•com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/6512db18-bd15-462e-92fd-7549b5e885e7n%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/6512db18-bd15-462e-92fd-7549b5e885e7n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
> <hodltax.md>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups•com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/C7829BDC-1273-49C9-BE03-F00823A94C3D%40gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/C7829BDC-1273-49C9-BE03-F00823A94C3D%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>

-- 


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5129 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2024-08-02  0:28   ` Keagan McClelland

  2024-08-02  2:03       ` George Burke
  2024-08-02  5:08       ` 'hashnoncemessage' via Bitcoin Development Mailing List
  
From: Jimmy Song @ 2024-08-02  1:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Keagan McClelland
  Cc: José Edil Guimarães de Medeiros, Richard Greaser,
	Bitcoin Development Mailing List

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4844 bytes --]

For those that haven't figured this out yet, the name on the original
proposal (Dick Greaser) is the editor or the Bitcoin Bugle, a satirical
"news" site. He's trolling the list.

On Thu, Aug 1, 2024, 8:57 PM Keagan McClelland <keagan.mcclelland@gmail•com>
wrote:

> Hypothetically miners could attempt to adopt a mining/relay policy wherein
> they consider the age of the utxo being spent and factor that into the
> feerate they consider when accepting the transaction into their block
> template. However this would be an opt-in mechanism and miners can choose
> to not take this into consideration when making the choice to mine the
> transaction or not. If enough hashpower adopted this policy, you could end
> up with a de-facto demurrage tax. This also means that you can do this
> without a consensus fork if there was appetite for it.
>
> However, I suspect there will be extreme resistance to this proposal and
> it is unlikely that miners would intentionally leave otherwise-good fees on
> the table simply because they want to play prisoners dilemma games where
> they lose fees to the competition.
>
> Keags
>
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 5:18 PM José Edil Guimarães de Medeiros <
> jose.edil@gmail•com> wrote:
>
>> Not sure if I should consider this a joke after the president of bitcoin
>> thing, but I just got curious about a basic technical detail and wanted to
>> stress the concept.
>>
>> Since the value "tokens" in Bitcoin are the utxos, outputs from
>> transactions that have not been spent in another transaction, and since the
>> sole purpose of the utxos are to atomically serve as input to a subsequent
>> transaction, how do you proposed to "tax" them?
>>
>> I mean, let's say someone sent me 1 BTC to address X by building a simple
>> p2pkh transaction with the address I provided. To move that 1 BTC mean to
>> authorize it as an input to a new transaction. In principle, that can only
>> be done by me producing a valid signature using a private key.
>>
>> Let's say I'm one of those infamous holders. How do you propose the tax
>> to be implemented?
>>
>> All the best.
>> --
>> E...
>>
>> On 1 Aug 2024, at 18:13, Richard Greaser <thebitcoinbugle@gmail•com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> ﻿Hi everyone,
>>
>> It has become apparent to me that there is an issue where users of the
>> network holding their coins, are not adding value to the network.
>>
>> As miners continue to get squeezed post halving, they would benefit
>> tremendously from fees being taken from individuals refusing to move their
>> coins, providing increased security to the network.
>>
>> I have written out a proposal more in depth and is attached below.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups•com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/6512db18-bd15-462e-92fd-7549b5e885e7n%40googlegroups.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/6512db18-bd15-462e-92fd-7549b5e885e7n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>> <hodltax.md>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups•com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/C7829BDC-1273-49C9-BE03-F00823A94C3D%40gmail.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/C7829BDC-1273-49C9-BE03-F00823A94C3D%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups•com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/CALeFGL2ngsRd3N%2B8L7u9ZLNQB084xqcMZ04Dp3J53CEBHBxQcg%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/CALeFGL2ngsRd3N%2B8L7u9ZLNQB084xqcMZ04Dp3J53CEBHBxQcg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>

-- 


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6564 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2024-08-02  1:19     ` Jimmy Song

  2024-08-02  5:08       ` 'hashnoncemessage' via Bitcoin Development Mailing List
  
From: George Burke @ 2024-08-02  2:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jimmy Song
  Cc: Bitcoin Development Mailing List,
	José Edil Guimarães de Medeiros, Keagan McClelland,
	Richard Greaser

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5922 bytes --]

Jimmy, he might be trolling but he replied privately to me with a very
thoughtful (though disagreeable) rebuttal. Hard to consider this satirical.


Sent from Mobile
-- 
George Burke
CMO, FounderPool.co
Cofounder, PortalDeFi.com
Silicon Valley Bitcoin, Organizer

San Francisco, CA | San Juan, PR





On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 6:57 PM Jimmy Song <jaejoon@gmail•com> wrote:

> For those that haven't figured this out yet, the name on the original
> proposal (Dick Greaser) is the editor or the Bitcoin Bugle, a satirical
> "news" site. He's trolling the list.
>
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2024, 8:57 PM Keagan McClelland <
> keagan.mcclelland@gmail•com> wrote:
>
>> Hypothetically miners could attempt to adopt a mining/relay policy
>> wherein they consider the age of the utxo being spent and factor that into
>> the feerate they consider when accepting the transaction into their block
>> template. However this would be an opt-in mechanism and miners can choose
>> to not take this into consideration when making the choice to mine the
>> transaction or not. If enough hashpower adopted this policy, you could end
>> up with a de-facto demurrage tax. This also means that you can do this
>> without a consensus fork if there was appetite for it.
>>
>> However, I suspect there will be extreme resistance to this proposal and
>> it is unlikely that miners would intentionally leave otherwise-good fees on
>> the table simply because they want to play prisoners dilemma games where
>> they lose fees to the competition.
>>
>> Keags
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 5:18 PM José Edil Guimarães de Medeiros <
>> jose.edil@gmail•com> wrote:
>>
>>> Not sure if I should consider this a joke after the president of bitcoin
>>> thing, but I just got curious about a basic technical detail and wanted to
>>> stress the concept.
>>>
>>> Since the value "tokens" in Bitcoin are the utxos, outputs from
>>> transactions that have not been spent in another transaction, and since the
>>> sole purpose of the utxos are to atomically serve as input to a subsequent
>>> transaction, how do you proposed to "tax" them?
>>>
>>> I mean, let's say someone sent me 1 BTC to address X by building a
>>> simple p2pkh transaction with the address I provided. To move that 1 BTC
>>> mean to authorize it as an input to a new transaction. In principle, that
>>> can only be done by me producing a valid signature using a private key.
>>>
>>> Let's say I'm one of those infamous holders. How do you propose the tax
>>> to be implemented?
>>>
>>> All the best.
>>> --
>>> E...
>>>
>>> On 1 Aug 2024, at 18:13, Richard Greaser <thebitcoinbugle@gmail•com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> ﻿Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> It has become apparent to me that there is an issue where users of the
>>> network holding their coins, are not adding value to the network.
>>>
>>> As miners continue to get squeezed post halving, they would benefit
>>> tremendously from fees being taken from individuals refusing to move their
>>> coins, providing increased security to the network.
>>>
>>> I have written out a proposal more in depth and is attached below.
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups•com.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/6512db18-bd15-462e-92fd-7549b5e885e7n%40googlegroups.com
>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/6512db18-bd15-462e-92fd-7549b5e885e7n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>>> .
>>> <hodltax.md>
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups•com.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/C7829BDC-1273-49C9-BE03-F00823A94C3D%40gmail.com
>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/C7829BDC-1273-49C9-BE03-F00823A94C3D%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>>> .
>>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups•com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/CALeFGL2ngsRd3N%2B8L7u9ZLNQB084xqcMZ04Dp3J53CEBHBxQcg%40mail.gmail.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/CALeFGL2ngsRd3N%2B8L7u9ZLNQB084xqcMZ04Dp3J53CEBHBxQcg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups•com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/CAJR7vkqSLkLDv%2By8D%2BaFC4pFDbtSmfrppyd5gMqG9fK_QTu6rw%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/CAJR7vkqSLkLDv%2By8D%2BaFC4pFDbtSmfrppyd5gMqG9fK_QTu6rw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>

-- 


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 8136 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2024-08-02  1:19     ` Jimmy Song
  2024-08-02  2:03       ` George Burke

  
From: 'hashnoncemessage' via Bitcoin Development Mailing List @ 2024-08-02  5:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jimmy Song
  Cc: Keagan McClelland, José Edil Guimarães de Medeiros,
	Richard Greaser, Bitcoin Development Mailing List

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5673 bytes --]

obvious troll is obvious

thanks dick greaser

> Like Paul Sztorc's previous proposals, this one has zero negative trade offs.

okay i lolled

On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 03:19, Jimmy Song <[jaejoon@gmail•com](mailto:On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 03:19, Jimmy Song <<a href=)> wrote:

> For those that haven't figured this out yet, the name on the original proposal (Dick Greaser) is the editor or the Bitcoin Bugle, a satirical "news" site. He's trolling the list.
>
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2024, 8:57 PM Keagan McClelland <keagan.mcclelland@gmail•com> wrote:
>
>> Hypothetically miners could attempt to adopt a mining/relay policy wherein they consider the age of the utxo being spent and factor that into the feerate they consider when accepting the transaction into their block template. However this would be an opt-in mechanism and miners can choose to not take this into consideration when making the choice to mine the transaction or not. If enough hashpower adopted this policy, you could end up with a de-facto demurrage tax. This also means that you can do this without a consensus fork if there was appetite for it.
>>
>> However, I suspect there will be extreme resistance to this proposal and it is unlikely that miners would intentionally leave otherwise-good fees on the table simply because they want to play prisoners dilemma games where they lose fees to the competition.
>>
>> Keags
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 5:18 PM José Edil Guimarães de Medeiros <jose.edil@gmail•com> wrote:
>>
>>> Not sure if I should consider this a joke after the president of bitcoin thing, but I just got curious about a basic technical detail and wanted to stress the concept.
>>>
>>> Since the value "tokens" in Bitcoin are the utxos, outputs from transactions that have not been spent in another transaction, and since the sole purpose of the utxos are to atomically serve as input to a subsequent transaction, how do you proposed to "tax" them?
>>>
>>> I mean, let's say someone sent me 1 BTC to address X by building a simple p2pkh transaction with the address I provided. To move that 1 BTC mean to authorize it as an input to a new transaction. In principle, that can only be done by me producing a valid signature using a private key.
>>>
>>> Let's say I'm one of those infamous holders. How do you propose the tax to be implemented?
>>>
>>> All the best.
>>>
>>> --
>>> E...
>>>
>>>> On 1 Aug 2024, at 18:13, Richard Greaser <thebitcoinbugle@gmail•com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> ﻿Hi everyone,
>>>>
>>>> It has become apparent to me that there is an issue where users of the network holding their coins, are not adding value to the network.
>>>> As miners continue to get squeezed post halving, they would benefit tremendously from fees being taken from individuals refusing to move their coins, providing increased security to the network.
>>>>
>>>> I have written out a proposal more in depth and is attached below.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7869 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2024-08-01 21:03 [bitcoindev] HODL Tax Proposal Richard Greaser
                   ` (2 preceding siblings ...)
  2024-08-02  0:12 ` Keagan McClelland

  
From: Garlo Nicon @ 2024-08-02  8:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bitcoin Development Mailing List


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4185 bytes --]

Good luck implementing it in test networks first, for example testnet3. 
Some people were complaining, that they cannot get enough coins, and there 
is no other test chain, which is close to the mainnet, and has a lot of 
history, and a lot of halvings. So, if you think seriously about it, then 
you should start from testnet3. Other networks, including mainnet, have not 
enough blocks, and have too big rewards for that.

> addresses that do not engage in any outgoing transactions for over 60 days

Miners can easily attack your network by mining empty blocks. It is 
profitable to block regular payments today, to get high demurrage fees 
tomorrow. Also, it is possible to easily censor any transaction, just by 
refusing to include it. Then, required demurrage fees will be higher, than 
what was originally sent as fees, and all nodes will just throw it away, 
while respecting your consensus. Which also means, that this proposal 
enables "transaction expiration" in some implicit way: if a transaction is 
not confirmed in N blocks, then everything is eaten by demurrage fees, so 
the old transaction simply expires.

> action needs to be taken before Peter Todd's suggestion of tail emissions 
get any serious momentum

Assuming that "tail supply" will ever be implemented, then guess what: 
people will count each and every overprinted satoshi. Creating coins is 
hard, burning them is easy. If people will inflate Bitcoin, then other 
people will bring it back to the equilibrium, just by burning all 
overprinted coins, and refusing to accept any overprinted satoshi. You will 
see charts, and statistics, how many "tail supply coins" were mined in a 
given block, and people will burn the same amount, if not more.

> A proposed rate is 0.1% of the address balance per inactivity period.

Ouch. This is way more than the current fees. Some people stopped using LN, 
because of fees like that. If you have 1 BTC, and you have to pay 100k 
satoshis, then you can compare it with on-chain fees, where you can get it 
confirmed for 1k sats. Which means, that this "0.1% fees" will remove all 
whales from your network, where "a whale" is "anyone with >= 0.01 BTC". 
Good luck maintaining the chain without any whales, it will be just an 
altcoin, similar to CPU-mined altcoins, where "miners=users" is the only 
use-case.

Also note, that miners can simply send those demurrage fees back to the 
users, just to get something. Then, they will have the choice: reject 
user's transaction entirely (because of missing demurrage fees), or confirm 
two transactions: one paying demurrage fees, and one sending them back to 
the user. Congratulations, your rule just doubled the number of 
transactions for no reason. Because only miners getting proper fees will 
survive, everyone else will reject too many transactions, and end up with 
nothing.

> The inactivity threshold and fee rate can be adjusted based on community 
feedback and network conditions.

So, is it a local node policy, instead of being a consensus rule? Good, 
then I can just edit my config file, put "demurragefee=0.00000000" and 
"inactivity=999999999". Good to know, that a proposal like that, can be 
turned off that simply.

czwartek, 1 sierpnia 2024 o 23:13:42 UTC+2 Richard Greaser napisał(a):

> Hi everyone, 
>
> It has become apparent to me that there is an issue where users of the 
> network holding their coins, are not adding value to the network. 
>
> As miners continue to get squeezed post halving, they would benefit 
> tremendously from fees being taken from individuals refusing to move their 
> coins, providing increased security to the network. 
>
> I have written out a proposal more in depth and is attached below. 
>

-- 
2: Type: text/html, Size: 4689 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]