<unnamed>

Public Key

npub1898wx5qz8xkgqk06la9ukfzk2dfvv0ejmrnu7akzwzj66ekt6p4qdxhudz

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsrjnhr2qprntyqt8a07j7ty3t9x5kx8ued3e70wmp8pfddvm9aq6spz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduqs6amnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0dsf4ajdh

Publishing to

relay.nostr.net

relay.damus.io

nos.lol

Last Notes

2023-06-07 15:27:01 UTC

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2014-10-28
📝 Original message:On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Neil <kyuupichan at gmail.com> wrote:
> Economically a halving is almost the same as a halving in price (as fees
> take up more of the pie, less so).
>
> Coincidentally the price has halved since early July to mid-October, and
> we've not even seen difficulty fall yet.
>
because mining profits are many times operational costs. This might change
because of competition, in that case halving in price will become
problematic.
It amazes me that basic economic considerations seems completely lost here,
especially when it comes to mining. We should have learned the lesson of
how a small error in the incentive structure has lead from "one CPU, one
vote" to an oligopoly which might easily become a monopoly in the near
future.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20141028/236689cb/attachment.html>

2023-06-07 15:26:47 UTC

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2014-10-28
📝 Original message:On Oct 25, 2014 9:19 PM, "Gavin Andresen" <gavinandresen at gmail.com> wrote:
> We had a halving, and it was a non-event.
> Is there some reason to believe next time will be different?
In november 2008 bitcoin was a much younger ecosystem, with less liquidity
and trading, smaller market cap, and the halving happened during a quite
stable positive price trend.
In the next months competition might easily drive down mining margins, and
the reward halving might generate unexpected disruption in mining
operations.
Moreover, halving is not strictly necessary to respect the spirit of
Nakamoto's monetary rule and its 21M limit. At the beginning of the 3rd
reward era (block 420000, in 2017) a new reward function could become
effective R(b)=k*2^(-h*b/210000) where b is the block number and R(b) is
the reward. The parameters h and k can be calibrated so that R(419999)=25
and sum_b{R}=21M
If the increased issuance speed in the third era is considered
problematic, then each era could have its own R_e(b)=k_e*2^(-h_e*b/210000)
fitted to the amount of coins to be issued in that era according to the
current supply rule, e.g. fitting k_e and h_e to R(419999)=25 and
sum_{b}_e=2,625,000.
Would such a BIP have any chance to be considered? Am I missing something?
Nando
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20141028/c338fcc4/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: btc-blkzoomed (1).png
Type: image/png
Size: 18254 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20141028/c338fcc4/attachment.png>