Replying to Avatar PiecoverBTC

The Tail Emission Attack on Bitcoin

I am going to explain why tail emission is an attack on the Bitcoin core principles and why it would spell the end of Bitcoin as we know it, if ever implemented in any serious kind of way.

Bitcoin Core Dev Peter Todd, came up with the idea of taxing Bitcoin holders on their money to pay miners more for security, like we don't already pay miners in fees and there wasn't already a fee-market incentive for miners to plug in their machines or unplug when unprofitable, again another attacker trying to address a none issue with fake solutions with fear. Let me explain farther below.

Bitcoin works because of the 21M hard cap removing this would spell the end of it as hard money, tail emission is like making a small hole in the bottom of dam that will eventually grow big and make cracks until the dam falls. Why is this an attack?

Well, most people who buy bitcoin are buying it because it has a hard cap of 21million that nobody can change, that's the reason why I started paying attention to Bitcoin in the first place, so removing that already turn off a lot of us as we start pricing in future taxes or increase in the money supply, not only that, the other problem is "who has the right to print the money this time and every other time in the future? Peter said it's for security, well I want remind him that there is a difficulty adjustment in Bitcoin that always look for free market equilibrium, when hashrate is too high it goes up when it's too low difficulty goes down to incentivize mining, and if he is concern about the halving lowering rewards in bitcoin terms well again SATs get more valuable overtime so any amount of transaction fee will support the network even when all the 21M coins are mined. The issue here is if we start printing more SATs to devalue the Bitcoin overall market cap, Bitcoin price falls miners get paid less valuable money therefore less miners are incentivized to secure the network, so it would actually break Bitcoin, but let address his other arguments.

Peter also points out that the miners will collude to attack the network in a potential future, "future he can't even predict". Here again another strawman argument, asking for power so he can protect you in a future attack that he doesn't even understand if possible or not. Miners don't control the network, they may decide to pay a bunch of devs to introduce a code that benefits them but what are the chances the code ever get into everyone else node? He said well do the math it's good to do the math.

Ok, I am going to do the math, I am sure in 10 to 100 years from now 100 of countries plus millions of businesses plus billions of people will want to send some bitcoin utxo on-chain, if each block contains 5,000 to 7,000 transactions in average of 1000Sats fee each then that's an equivalent block reward of 5M to 7M SATs each, that's $500K minimum at $10Million bitcoin. So you see transaction fees can easily support the network in the future without any changes to Bitcoin. But again these people will always find an excuse to convince you why they need to print money for free that everone else have to work for, so don't fall for it.

Lastly, I want to point out that the Bitcoin limit is not a number you can change just like that because it's based on time, that's why Satoshi said he had to be very careful with the 21M number because once the network starts you can't go back and change it, you would have to go back in time Jan 3rd, 2009 to change the genesis block to change it, this core design principle is set in stone for the rest of Bitcoin lifetime and we would like to keep it that way.

https://stacker.news/items/1053591/r/piecoverBTC

to mathematicians, this notion of the tail emissions, which really just means interpolation of the stair-step decline of rewards, as an attack, is ridiculous.

if the graph is plotted out, and the number of sats at each block is the same in both cases, there has been no change in supply. it does, however, mean that likely the subsidy will continue for a few years after the halving pattern would have dropped to zero. but that extra would literally be the smoothed out segment of the last reward cycle moved to the next. it would only extend to the next cycle after what would have been the last cycle, and only part way into it.

what is more important is the complexity of implemenatation

tail emissions curves are an exponential decay cycle which means transcendental math. the risk of forks being caused by this is substantial, the algorithm is complex and there is not many common fixed point fractional exponentiation implementations in existence. not sure why, but without a deterministic formula for it, i say better to stick to halving.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Thank you for making my point at the end there. Tail emission reintroduces infinite money printing again as it would start small then grow big like in every other fiat currency, they would always find excuse.

Bitcoin 21M hard cap is a permanent solution to the unique problem of tail emission. Bitcoin is self-sustaining witin and designed to last for thousands of years functioning without interruptions just the way it is. If we let anyone to come tweak the parameters to satisfy their own goals humanity will be the one enslaved by fiat cbdcs and losing the opportunity to free themselves eith absolute digital scarcity.

you mean that he wrote some gobbledygook and you're happy he agrees with you

"transcendental math" LOL

STFU

monero issues ,6 units per block.

therefore the rate of supply inflation always decreases as a % of total supply.

fiat supply is marked by central control over issuance. it doesn't matter how many monetary units there are, it matters that monetary policy is known and predictable.

if you have a problem with that, then explain to me how gold is still a solid SoV for 4000 years DESPITE a 1-2% supply inflation.

There is a set amount of GOLD on earth whether we know it or not, because earth is a finite planet.

2% inflation a year is a massive loss in purchasing power in 10 to 30 years, this is why gold can't protect you against inflation. Again Bitcoin is the fix to the very long old inflation problem. Going back to tail emission is a downgrade to humanity.

tail emission doesn't necessarily mean changing the real suppy except up and down a bit to make a smooth curve in the 4 year cycle

but it's stupid anyway. the tail is 2140. by then the precision will be at least 128 bits and there will be a whole 300 years more of fractional sats

Right, but even if tail emission were to be a thing it CANNOT make a smooth curve for any good outcomes. Even in an idealistic scenario it doesn't work because it messes up the entire free market structure and misallocates capital.

The best supply issuance curve is the one we have right now, the Satoshi created, it's working perfectly fine. I don't think humans of today can make it better, not in a million years.

The only people who want to change it are people who want free money they don't work for in expense of everyone else.

No advancement or emergence is evenly distributed. It would take unethical actions to make it so.

Bitcoin is the most open, accessible, and fairly distributed money in history.

Apologies, misread your comment but point still stands

Gold is only a long term sov when denominated in fiat currency.

With 2% added to the total supply yearly, you’re looking at compound growth if 2% is mined annually, the supply doubles roughly every 35 years.

How much gold does china have? How much gold is in fort knox? Says who?

Historically, it was less inflationary due to technology and people's limitations to mine or transport gold relative to all other options, it held its value best and was easiest to authenticate.

It stayed money because had other important properties too: it is relatively portable/durable, recognizable/verifiable, divisible, universally desired and scarce.

Gold supply shocks are not new at flooding the market and suddenly lowering values.

Sudden supply surges dilute gold’s scarcity, which can trigger deflation or inflation, depending on how economies adjust. It's just been a several decades since the last time it happened.

Back when Spain hit the Americas in the 1500s, they hauled back so much gold it spiked inflation across Europe, prices in Spain jumped like 500% over a century, tanking their economy because the value of gold crashed.

Same deal with the California Gold Rush in the 1840s, England and others got hit with economic chaos as gold flooded markets, dropping its value and messing with trade balances. Sudden supply surges dilute gold’s scarcity, which can trigger deflation or inflation, depending on how economies adjust.

All of this also effects supply:

Large-scale gold capture has gotten more efficient with automated drilling and blasting, which cuts costs.

New tech like thiosulfate leaching, unlike the old cyanide methods can hit 85% recovery with less environmental damage.

Ocean floor mining, like the Solwara 1 project in Papua New Guinea, is targeting gold at depths of 3400 feet, using advanced underwater robots and ROVs.

Gold's in seawater at super low concentrations. It’s not yet cost-effective, though combining it with desalination plants or other unforeseen advancements could change that.

Also of course, in time, all governments plunder/confiscate their own citizens' gold and make it illegal to transact in. All governments take a large percentage at border crossings, it's among the first things a warring army will take from the people.

Gold always leads to trusting third parties, it always directly leads to fiat money.

Gold is spoils of violence and war. Gold is costly and dangerous to secure, needing a vault or other defense mechanisms to protect, carry or transport.

Counterfeit gold is incentivized to and does advance. Give a street merchant gold and how do they realistically validate its authenticity?

Gold led to and always leads to trusting a third party, which always gives way to corruption via central banking and thus fractional reserve banking, arbitrary debt creation, fiat money and authoritarian governance.

#Bitcoin

If the supply increase was predictable and everyone knew about it, like a steady 2% bump in gold each year, markets could theoretically adjust smoother prices would gradually factor in the extra supply, avoiding sudden shocks.

Long-term holders would still take a hit, but it’d be less brutal since they could plan for the dilution.

Investors would shift to assets with better scarcity or returns, no central planning needed.

Knowledge of the increase spreads through price signals, letting folks adapt naturally.

No planner could predict all the ripple effects as well as decentralized markets could.

And of course, if governments or central banks mess with the signals like fixing prices or altering money supply, distortions could still screw things up.