rich1.0npub1dalwmzu6f0yqdl0cy8qeaa6zcrzkara3jh8jjv7zky5s0tuypatsu07r9nhttps://nostr.ae/npub1dalwmzu6f0yqdl0cy8qeaa6zcrzkara3jh8jjv7zky5s0tuypatsu07r9nnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2022-07-26 📝 Original message:"large holders who perform zero transactions will still mine in order to preserve the value of the network" let me slightly modify the sentence below: "The Prisoner's Dilemma is a standard example of a game analyzed in game theory that shows why completely rational large holders might not cooperate, even if it appears that it is in their best interests to do so." I'm pretty sure we will have a textbook case of Prisoner's Dilemma here. Regards Jaroslaw W dniu 2022-07-26 10:20:38 użytkownik Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> napisał: even with zero block reward and minimal fees, large holders who perform zero transactions will still mine in order to preserve the value of the network   this is not "mining your own tx", it is unrelated   this is "mining at a small loss to preserve your stake"   not only don't we need issuance or fees, but also the censorship resistance is not meaningfully improved with issuance    On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 3:14 PM Erik Aronesty <erik at q32.com> wrote: subsidy to directly tie miner revenue to the total value of Bitcoin makes it not exactly how we want to incentivise a service that keeps   again, this is meaningless.   if the fees aren't enough to keep  bitcoin secure for large transactions, then large holders are incentivised to mine   that's it.   it's not complicated -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220726/b91c65b7/attachment.html>