{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2022-07-09\n📝 Original message:On Sat, Jul 09, 2022 at 04:57:57PM +0200, John Tromp via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e \u003e New blog post:\n\u003e \u003e https://petertodd.org/2022/surprisingly-tail-emission-is-not-inflationary\n\u003e \n\u003e A Tail Emission is best described as disinflationary; the yearly\n\u003e supply inflation steadily decreases toward zero.\n\n_Apparently_ inflation. True monetary inflation includes lost coins - both\nintentionally and accidentally lost. It's quite possible that even with tail\nemission Monero is currently a monetarily deflationary coin, as the lost coin\nrate might be higher than the 0.8% apparent tail emission rate.\n\nWe just don't know. Doubly so in the case of monero where its privacy features\nhide coin activity.\n\n\u003e \u003e If an existing coin decides to implement tail emission as a means to fund security, choosing an appropriate emission rate is simple: decide on the maximum amount of inflation you are willing to have in the worst case, and set the tail emission accordingly.\n\u003e \n\u003e Any coin without a premine starts with infinite inflation. Bitcoin in\n\u003e its first 4 years had yearly inflation rates of inf, 100%, 50%, and\n\u003e 33%. So deciding on a maximum amount of inflation is deciding on a\n\u003e premine.\n\nHence why I specified an *existing* coin.\n\n\u003e While in the long term, a capped supply doesn't meaningfully differ\n\u003e from un uncapped supply [1], the 21M limit is central to Bitcoin's\n\u003e identity, and removing this limit results in something that can no\n\u003e longer be called Bitcoin.\n\nPersonally I think basing your identity on a technical point that isn't even\ncorrect is stupid. And I suspect than when push comes to shove, if in ~10 years\nor whatever Bitcoin turns out to be unstable without a reward, the market as a\nwhole will be happy to redefine Bitcoin to remove the 21M limit. Whether or not\nit can do that fast enough to avoid Bitcoin dying first is an open question.\n\n-- \nhttps://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 833 bytes\nDesc: not available\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220709/4c36e63b/attachment.sig\u003e"}