https://nostr.ae https://nostr.ae/npub1hp6u4u98w2pfl7l46akse33kaq8eg0gmu4z2l5cgz7dxjt2v5prqy499l0 https://nostr.ae/nevent1qqs0neeltashpg2gd4v2je9s2kaxvgmmwf8h38xgjepdetk69v7v55qzyzu8tjhs5aeg98lm7htk6rxxxm5ql9par0j5ft7npqte56fdfjsyvx73qhh In reply to <a href='/nevent1qqswdnts7dt4nytuyg3tsff3m44p2669rpl6f7pd5qcwsz9v4vunwtqerjycn'>nevent1q…jycn</a><br/>_________________________<br/><br/>📅 Original date posted:2021-10-15<br/>📝 Original message:Making Bitcoin function after 2038 is by definition a hard fork<br/><br/>I feel if we do HF, we should bundle other HF changes with it...<br/><br/>On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 5:19 PM vjudeu via bitcoin-dev &lt;<br/>bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org&gt; wrote:<br/><br/>&gt; It seems that Bitcoin Core will stop working in 2038 because of assertion<br/>&gt; checking if the current time is non-negative. Also, the whole chain will<br/>&gt; halt after reaching median time 0xffffffff in 2106. More information:<br/>&gt; <a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5365359.0">https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5365359.0</a><br/>&gt;<br/>&gt; I wonder if that kind of issues are possible to fix in a soft-fork way.<br/>&gt; _______________________________________________<br/>&gt; bitcoin-dev mailing list<br/>&gt; bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org<br/>&gt; <a href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br/>&gt;<br/>-------------- next part --------------<br/>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br/>URL: &lt;<a href="http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20211015/c898de49/attachment-0001.html&gt">http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20211015/c898de49/attachment-0001.html&gt</a>; 2023-06-07T23:00:06Z https://nostr.ae/nevent1qqsfa692qqua790evz5cepv2g42y24vp2mjrq9f2ydyts5alfw36esczyzu8tjhs5aeg98lm7htk6rxxxm5ql9par0j5ft7npqte56fdfjsyvdn5lz3 In reply to <a href='/nevent1qqsg6zacycthks0xt86u2eh80kaf54hamg3tll9pptzjxqe98mj339smzu692'>nevent1q…u692</a><br/>_________________________<br/><br/>📅 Original date posted:2021-05-22<br/>📝 Original message:Background<br/>===<br/>Reducing the block reward reduces the incentive to mine. It reduces the<br/>maximum energy price at which mining is profitable, reducing the energy use.<br/><br/>Bitcoins have value because they are accepted by full node users, from<br/>individual node operators, to exchanges and custodians like Coinbase.<br/>Anything else and the Bitcoins don&#39;t exist and are worthless. Like all<br/>currencies, Bitcoin has value because others recognize that they have value.<br/><br/>Idea<br/>===<br/>Reduce the block reward by adding fewer coins to the UTXO set per block.<br/>This should be done gradually<br/><br/>Consensus layer<br/>===<br/>This is a soft fork, because it tightens the<br/><br/>Some Possible Weaknesses<br/>===<br/>- It will cost less than a nation-state of energy to reverse recent Bitcoin<br/>transactions.<br/>- Some miners may protest and lobby exchanges.<br/>- By pushing mining towards the cheapest energy sources, centralization<br/>increases towards Chinese miners.<br/>- The Bitcoin network may split if consensus is not built before flag day.<br/><br/>However, given the current political headwinds and widespread public<br/>discussion around Bitcoin&#39;s energy use, it may be socially possible to ask<br/>individual users and major exchanges to install a version of Bitcoin with a<br/>reduced block reward.<br/><br/>Alternatives<br/>===<br/>Instead of outright rejecting transactions (and the blocks that contain<br/>them) that attempt to spend increased block rewards, treat them as no-ops.<br/>-------------- next part --------------<br/>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br/>URL: &lt;<a href="http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20210522/d4bec4ce/attachment.html&gt">http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20210522/d4bec4ce/attachment.html&gt</a>; 2023-06-07T22:53:56Z