Tail emission ideas that retain the 21 million limit

[ABCbits]

Would miner prefer to have more reward in future, rather than now?

If the protocol prevented them from grabbing that "burnt" part of the transaction fee, then they would not have this option. Or maybe you refer to the possibility that miners could reject that soft/hardfork? I think in this case everything would depend on the signalled support from economic nodes.

Yeah, i imply current miner would reject such soft/hardfork. As for readiness signal from node, i doubt it's enough to pressure miners accept such change.

Merged mining also can be done with Bitcoin layers rather than altcoin. On theory, Bitcoiner would use of one of those Bitcoin layers to make TX with lower fee and faster confirmation. But Rootstock proved it's unpopular option among Bitcoiner.

I think RSK has also the problem that they are considered a centralized entity (instead of a real decentralized sidechain) due to their federation model, and thus they aren't that popular.

Yeah, RSK is just example. But looking at https://www.bitcoinlayers.org/, there's little alternative that can give miner some more income while not being more centralized/require more trust than RSK.

[Satofan44]

This solution requires fractional satoshis. To make things simple, I propose dividing a satoshi into 100 million parts (because the demurrage cost is ¹/_{100 million}).

More complexity and more units is not desirable. Anyhow, if I understood you correctly your proposal will punish the best holders for simply holding? That is a terrible and radical change of incentives.

2. Lost coins and dust are eventually recovered.

Replace one type of confiscation with another? How do you know that my coins are lost, because I am not using them actively?  

There are simpler ways to approach this, and I will give one example. You can introduce a primary flat miner fee, and retain the variable fee from the fee market on top of it. Let's say that we introduce a a flat fee of 100 satoshi, which as of today would be $0.11. At 3000 transactions per block, that is an extra 300 000 sats.

More complexity may be necessary, even though it is not desirable. Are you saying that none of the protocol changes currently being considered increase complexity?

My suggestion does not confiscate coins. Like yours, it imposes an additional transaction fee, but based on the age of the coins. There is no need to determine whether coins are "lost".

The purpose of "tail emission" is to guarantee revenue per block. Your suggestion of a flat fee does not accomplish that.

Fair, but when it comes specifically to units I am very against introducing anything. There is already too many being used, and most users have no idea what they mean. That being said, I don't see why I should pay more than someone else because I am a good little holder. For me, you are confiscating part of my holdings by forcing me to pay more over people who just started using Bitcoin. Is there any difference in practice if you take away 5% of coins from each address that has unmoved coins from 2010, or if you make them pay a 5% fee to move them? No.

Whether it is done by actually taking them away or forcing me to pay a huge fee to use them, is again just semantics.

[stwenhao]

Is there any difference in practice if you take away 5% of coins from each address that has unmoved coins from 2010, or if you make them pay a 5% fee to move them? No.

In general, tail supply, where 21 million coins limit is broken, is a sneaky way of getting coins from each user. Because then, users preserve the same amounts as before, but they can lose value over time, because of newly produced coins.

However, when tail supply is introduced without touching 21 million coins limit, then users can really see, what it is about: it is equivalent to taking proportional amount from each and every UTXO, and redirecting that to the miners.

Which means, that if someone will introduce "tail supply fees", which will always be allocated into future block rewards, then it will work in exactly the same way, as tail supply would. It is only a matter of picking the right numbers, to preserve all proportions, that someone wants to achieve.

Whether it is done by actually taking them away or forcing me to pay a huge fee to use them, is again just semantics.

True. And in general I think, that preserving the supply limit is better, because then, users are more aware, what this proposal is really about, and they can make a more informed decision, if they want to use a coin with such changes or not.

[alani123]

There could be some sort of trust or anuity that is established independently from any code.

You don't need to ruin the code that cements limited emissions. The mistake Ethereum made to change this as if it's something fluid didn't pay off as they intended and now they have a growing potential for inflation.

It's an interesting phenomenon that will play out through the years but so far Bitcoin's strategy of doing nothing has worked best. If anyone feels as if there's a need for mining to continue, they're more than free to contribute their cash towards starting an annuity. The legal landscape for that already existed hundreds of years and it's easy to do.

[Satofan44]

Is there any difference in practice if you take away 5% of coins from each address that has unmoved coins from 2010, or if you make them pay a 5% fee to move them? No.

In general, tail supply, where 21 million coins limit is broken, is a sneaky way of getting coins from each user. Because then, users preserve the same amounts as before, but they can lose value over time, because of newly produced coins.

Yes, I am against any such proposal. It is just reinventing money printing and inflation with new names.

However, when tail supply is introduced without touching 21 million coins limit, then users can really see, what it is about: it is equivalent to taking proportional amount from each and every UTXO, and redirecting that to the miners.
Which means, that if someone will introduce "tail supply fees", which will always be allocated into future block rewards, then it will work in exactly the same way, as tail supply would. It is only a matter of picking the right numbers, to preserve all proportions, that someone wants to achieve.

I am less against such a proposal, but as long as it is fair. It is even ridiculous to propose to punish me for my strong belief in Bitcoin. Proportional amount from every UTXO makes much more sense than anything related to coin age.

It's an interesting phenomenon that will play out through the years but so far Bitcoin's strategy of doing nothing has worked best. If anyone feels as if there's a need for mining to continue, they're more than free to contribute their cash towards starting an annuity. The legal landscape for that already existed hundreds of years and it's easy to do.

As I said, there is no problem right now. There is only speculation that it may become a problem, but nobody really knows. If they pretend that they do, they are just another snake oil salesman. While we observe what happens, we can use the time to discuss proposals and not rush into anything radical.

[odolvlobo]

That being said, I don't see why I should pay more than someone else because I am a good little holder. For me, you are confiscating part of my holdings by forcing me to pay more over people who just started using Bitcoin. Is there any difference in practice if you take away 5% of coins from each address that has unmoved coins from 2010, or if you make them pay a 5% fee to move them? No.

Whether it is done by actually taking them away or forcing me to pay a huge fee to use them, is again just semantics.

Any fee could be considered "confiscation", so the hyperbole is not helpful. And, the fee I am suggesting, 1 satoshi/bitcoin/block, is not "huge". It is very small. It is not 5% over 15 years. It is only 1% every 20 years.

The system has to pay for itself, so fees are necessary. In my view, if some use of Bitcoin has a benefit, then a fee related to that use seems appropriate. You make it clear that there is a benefit to holding bitcoins, so wouldn't it be reasonable to pay a fee for that benefit? Why should others pay for your benefit?

[Satofan44]

Any fee could be considered "confiscation", so the hyperbole is not helpful. And, the fee I am suggesting, 1 satoshi/bitcoin/block, is not "huge".

It can be, but this is not hyperbole. We are not talking about $0.1 in fees when I am using the valuable and scarce block space, we are talking about percentages of the total coin for simply holding Bitcoin. It is something else entirely. Just because we call both fees, that does not make them the same.

2. In addition to the subsidy and fees, the block reward now also includes a fixed amount of 21 million satoshis. Transaction fees are still necessary, and the subsidy would continue to halve as normal.

You said your given percentage is arbitrary. If I understood your proposal correctly, you always generate extra satoshis for miners while old coins accrue "burn debt" which is only paid when they are used? Just change the description to achieve the same process, and you will see how it looks and acts exactly like confiscation. Instead of the burn happening when I spend the coin, the protocol takes them automatically away at the same rate. How is this any different? Because I am the one doing the spending and it is not automatic?

The system has to pay for itself, so fees are necessary. In my view, if some use of Bitcoin has a benefit, then a fee related to that use seems appropriate. You make it clear that there is a benefit to holding bitcoins, so wouldn't it be reasonable to pay a fee for that benefit? Why should others pay for your benefit?

Tax me for using it, but also tax me for not using it? I am not saying that fees should not be paid, I am saying that your proposal is unfair. Actually holding Bitcoin like this is more beneficial to everyone else as well as it helps support and increase the value of their Bitcoin.  Simply because of that I should not have to pay more than others, we don't even have to consider any additional arguments to support it. Find a fair solution, one that is not ungrateful towards long holders.

[philipma1957]

I still feel that confiscating stale addresses is what will be done.
Banks already do this.
and goverenments allow it.

To be fair most people are interested in Bitcoin because it is not like what banks and governments do, therefore they consider this against one of Bitcoin's main principles.
But we can't really predict what 2026 is going to be like so we shouldn't leap ahead to 2079

Increasing Bitcoin's capacity by allowing more transactions per block is the direct route to higher fees for miners in the future but you can't actually ignore the downsides too.

Actually, more transactions mean more fees collected which becomes kinda a compensation as new Bitcoin rewards shrink. I think the trick here is doing it without making Bitcoin too hard for regular people to run a node which keeps it decentralized.

Whatever decision that is made has both advantages and disadvantage. Nothing is 100% good or 100% bad. The trick is always finding that balance to minimize the negative effects and maximize the positive.

Like I said the pressure for any of these ideas to be started does not exist at the moment.

But when traditional companies and governments are hodling a million btc right now maybe close to 2 million btc they will certainly not want the value of BTC to drop becasue miners switch to scrypt.

 I also wish I were 25-30 and that I would live another 60 or 70 years longer than todays date as I want to see what they end up doing when the
rewards+fees problem come to a head.



  Being 68 years old seeing a stale bank account getting held and locked  is not a new thing for me. In fact I just unlocked one this year by

depositing 1 dollar and then withdrawing it a few minutes later.

It will be interesting to see what mechanism or mechanisms are used.

[PrivacyG]

I really wonder, do some of you people think that changing Bitcoin significantly NOW or even in the next decade in order to save a potential disaster that may happen over a century from now is a good idea?

This sounds like a thing to maybe take care of about 100 years from now.  Until then, maybe Bitcoin does not even get to exist any more.  If it all comes down to twice the price every halving, we should be at over 100 million dollars per Bitcoin by around 2060.  And about the market cap, my calculator can not even count that much.  On the other hand, if this inflation situation continues until then, it actually sounds like a realistic after all.

So many things can happen.  Quantum computing in the hands of individuals rather than researchers may actually become a problem until then.  But the worst of it all, a significant Bitcoin change is always all about chances.  So far, Bitcoin has done great and the chances were considered slim.  Why change it significantly if there is a chance the new version leads it straight toward its grave?

Bringing changes in small steps and closer to the timeline sounds way safer.  Hell.  We barely know how the world is going to look like in 2030 if you bring your own mind back to 2020.  Would you have guessed back then that this is how 2020 through 2025 would look like?

[Satofan44]

I really wonder, do some of you people think that changing Bitcoin significantly NOW or even in the next decade in order to save a potential disaster that may happen over a century from now is a good idea?

This sounds like a thing to maybe take care of about 100 years from now.  Until then, maybe Bitcoin does not even get to exist any more.  If it all comes down to twice the price every halving, we should be at over 100 million dollars per Bitcoin by around 2060.  And about the market cap, my calculator can not even count that much.  On the other hand, if this inflation situation continues until then, it actually sounds like a realistic after all.

So many things can happen.  Quantum computing in the hands of individuals rather than researchers may actually become a problem until then.  But the worst of it all, a significant Bitcoin change is always all about chances.  So far, Bitcoin has done great and the chances were considered slim.  Why change it significantly if there is a chance the new version leads it straight toward its grave?

Bringing changes in small steps and closer to the timeline sounds way safer.  Hell.  We barely know how the world is going to look like in 2030 if you bring your own mind back to 2020.  Would you have guessed back then that this is how 2020 through 2025 would look like?

I've said it here. With or without this issue, someday somewhere an equilibrium must be met. Even without this issue, the hashrate can't go up forever like this. A stagnation of the rewards for some time would actually push the companies towards more efficiency improvements.

Do fees need to always stay high? No. Does the hashrate have to always increase? Also no.

It is better to not make such changes any time soon.

[philipma1957]

I really wonder, do some of you people think that changing Bitcoin significantly NOW or even in the next decade in order to save a potential disaster that may happen over a century from now is a good idea?

This sounds like a thing to maybe take care of about 100 years from now.  Until then, maybe Bitcoin does not even get to exist any more.  If it all comes down to twice the price every halving, we should be at over 100 million dollars per Bitcoin by around 2060.  And about the market cap, my calculator can not even count that much.  On the other hand, if this inflation situation continues until then, it actually sounds like a realistic after all.

So many things can happen.  Quantum computing in the hands of individuals rather than researchers may actually become a problem until then.  But the worst of it all, a significant Bitcoin change is always all about chances.  So far, Bitcoin has done great and the chances were considered slim.  Why change it significantly if there is a chance the new version leads it straight toward its grave?

Bringing changes in small steps and closer to the timeline sounds way safer.  Hell.  We barely know how the world is going to look like in 2030 if you bring your own mind back to 2020.  Would you have guessed back then that this is how 2020 through 2025 would look like?

I agree with you in that every idea voiced in this thread would be far too drastic a change for

2025-2060

and by the time we get to 2060 we would be able to see the effects of really tiny block rewards vs fees.

2028=  1.5625 or zero issue why do a thing
2032=  0.78125 or zero issue why do a thing
2036=  0.390625 or zero issue why do a thing
2040=  0.1953125 or zero issue why do a thing

once we are at 2040 we can assess  the price of the coin and if it is high enough 0.19+ 0.06 =0.25 btc a block

logic would say that is 12x lower coins in total and for miners to not switch price needs to be 1 mil to 1.3 mil

that would keep the miners mining btc and not switch to scrypt.

so we should easy peasy make it to 2040 with out tail end or confiscated stale coins.

we can also assess just how well LN works to create fees.

at 1.2 mill a 50 cent fee now would be five bucks so it should be fine if we are

1.2 million price in 2040

the way to look at this is

2056 would mean 12 milion price is needed and a tx fee would be 50 bucks minimum. as 10x price rise in 16 years allows system to working for mining.

but so much can happen in the 2025 to 2040 time and of course in the 2040 to 2056 time

LN growth is very important and coin price is very important

I will be 99 in 2056 would love to see what it looks like then.

I honestly think the goal will be to switch to doge but maybe LN network helps enough for fees to work.

[z5k_alt]

Of course it would be. But it is good to have a backup plan, if the community will reject your changes. [...]
Also, you can try to convince the current miners, to accept a proposal, where they will send some of the current coinbase rewards to some future block numbers. Or: you can make a mining pool, which will produce such block templates, and try to encourage miners to join it.

That's maybe more interesting than I thought at first. At least there seems to be an "intermediate" group of possibilities where no hardfork and no mandatory tx fee burn is needed. It would not be a real tail emission but it could achieve a similar effect (to make rewards more predictable).

One could for example nudge people towards such "future-miner-friendly" behavior. For example creating an output type which has half of the weight units of a normal output (and thus costs only half of the fees, or any other percentage), but spends automatically a certain fee to a future block. Or a transaction type. Have to think about that a bit ...

The principle would be: : if you use this kind of output/transaction, you pay a lower fee now, but transfer a small amount of coins to future miners (best would be a fixed block number ahead).

This would make blocks slightly bigger due to this new "discount" but remain probably close to cost-neutral for users if it's designed well (depending on congestion / fee level).

The only "losers" of this model would be normal full nodes, who have to invest a little bit more into hardware, but not by much. If I'm not understanding something wrong.

But that is a problem. If blocks are empty for 4 years, then there would be no tail emission for the next 4 years.

That's true, at least there is a dependency of the past usage. However, if usage is very low, then we maybe don't need that much security.

I checked your demurrage idea and so far from my non-expert point of view I cannot find any real flaw. The only problem is that this would probably never be accepted by the Bitcoin community, because above all the "hodler" fraction would consider it a confiscation. It could however be a measure of last resort -- for example, if a model like the "tail emission based on burnt transaction fees" doesn't work.

[takuma sato]

I really wonder, do some of you people think that changing Bitcoin significantly NOW or even in the next decade in order to save a potential disaster that may happen over a century from now is a good idea?

This sounds like a thing to maybe take care of about 100 years from now.  Until then, maybe Bitcoin does not even get to exist any more.  If it all comes down to twice the price every halving, we should be at over 100 million dollars per Bitcoin by around 2060.  And about the market cap, my calculator can not even count that much.  On the other hand, if this inflation situation continues until then, it actually sounds like a realistic after all.

So many things can happen.  Quantum computing in the hands of individuals rather than researchers may actually become a problem until then.  But the worst of it all, a significant Bitcoin change is always all about chances.  So far, Bitcoin has done great and the chances were considered slim.  Why change it significantly if there is a chance the new version leads it straight toward its grave?

Bringing changes in small steps and closer to the timeline sounds way safer.  Hell.  We barely know how the world is going to look like in 2030 if you bring your own mind back to 2020.  Would you have guessed back then that this is how 2020 through 2025 would look like?

If SHA256 gets hacked, then there will be an organic and pretty much instant agreement to move to a QC-resistant fork, but they will need to do it before it hits ideally, so we can avoid the panic moment. There will be panic anyway, but we should really move in-beforehand and get it done. If we would be able to get some sort of 1qc type of address, we could have some funds ready as an hedge against QC attacks, while not necessarily going all in just in case.

The fact that everything, including banking works on SHA256, means there will be worldwide panic, but BTC may get hit harder since it's decentralized, there are no rollbacks, so we need to move years in advance.

[stwenhao]

instant agreement to move to a QC-resistant fork

To which algorithm exactly? It is not yet decided.

1qc type of address

It will be "bc1p", based on Taproot, or the next Segwit version will be used. And in that case, it will start from "bc1z", for example bc1zqyqs3juw9m (which is now spendable by anyone, because such changes are not introduced yet).

If SHA256 gets hacked

That kind of attack will probably bring more problems, than breaking ECDSA alone. Because then, breaking SHA-256 means instantly reaching 99%, instead of just 51% of hashrate majority (which also means, that chain rehashing will be needed), and also potentially being able to make collisions or preimages, which would allow breaking ECDSA as well, by making random signatures, and then crafting transactions, which would hash to a given value.

[NotATether]

The "second official bitcoin token" would not really be anything official from the bitcoin core developers, but more of a layer-2 project such as an ordinal or a Rune or a Taproot Asset.

Those have somehow gained actual value, so it would be trivial to see how miners can be rewarded by additionally relaying those sorts of Layer 2 transactions in addition to Layer 1.

It is the most straightforward solution I can think of, and it's been a thing since around 2023.

<However, bullshit that just wastes block space without being monetarily valuable should be ignored by mining pools.>

[takuma sato]

instant agreement to move to a QC-resistant fork

To which algorithm exactly? It is not yet decided.

1qc type of address

It will be "bc1p", based on Taproot, or the next Segwit version will be used. And in that case, it will start from "bc1z", for example bc1zqyqs3juw9m (which is now spendable by anyone, because such changes are not introduced yet).

If SHA256 gets hacked

That kind of attack will probably bring more problems, than breaking ECDSA alone. Because then, breaking SHA-256 means instantly reaching 99%, instead of just 51% of hashrate majority (which also means, that chain rehashing will be needed), and also potentially being able to make collisions or preimages, which would allow breaking ECDSA as well, by making random signatures, and then crafting transactions, which would hash to a given value.

Well we should decide soon. Bitcoin is different to traditional banking. The market may become paranoid even if it's a nothing burger in practice. It just takes 1 reported hack after something has been proven to crack the encryption, and there may be a big selloff. To avoid this we need to get it done before it even becomes practical at weaker encryption. Back then MD5 was used for a lot of things and people didn't worry much about it but now is not considered safe, so to solve this we must act before it even becomes a problem. I think we have a good to 15 years to get this done before realistically any serious threats arise, but ideally we want this done within this decade. Make it so that's optional. People must move the coins to the new quantum resistant address format. Something forced I think wouldn't work. Or some sort of cloning of all existing addresses into the new format would also I think be problematic.. perhaps it's just best to make people move the coins themselves into a new address type that is proven to be safe. It's going to be insanely annoying to move coins if you got many addresses but what can you do, we must protect against quantum computers, it will stop being a joke eventually.

[philipma1957]

That being said, I don't see why I should pay more than someone else because I am a good little holder. For me, you are confiscating part of my holdings by forcing me to pay more over people who just started using Bitcoin. Is there any difference in practice if you take away 5% of coins from each address that has unmoved coins from 2010, or if you make them pay a 5% fee to move them? No.

Whether it is done by actually taking them away or forcing me to pay a huge fee to use them, is again just semantics.

Any fee could be considered "confiscation", so the hyperbole is not helpful. And, the fee I am suggesting, 1 satoshi/bitcoin/block, is not "huge". It is very small. It is not 5% over 15 years. It is only 1% every 20 years.

The system has to pay for itself, so fees are necessary. In my view, if some use of Bitcoin has a benefit, then a fee related to that use seems appropriate. You make it clear that there is a benefit to holding bitcoins, so wouldn't it be reasonable to pay a fee for that benefit? Why should others pay for your benefit?

I bolded the key phrase. Since scrypt/Doge solved the issue by simply decreasing its inflation rate.

100 years to 101 years inflation will be 1%

and rewards always stay at 10000 coins. Doge and scrypt is fixed and will always loom as a threat in the future.

as of today btc has not fixed this and the issue simply closes in 2040 and a 1.2 million price per coin should work

but 2056 price needs to be 12 million to work.

and LN may or may not help even if it expands.

As fees need to go to mining or miners switch to good old predictable scrypt.

lifting old stale addresses most are 2009 to 2010 may not work for a very simple reason they may get moved and the 1 or 2 million rescue coins may be more like 100,000 to 200,000 coins.

[Medusah]

The system has to pay for itself, so fees are necessary. In my view, if some use of Bitcoin has a benefit, then a fee related to that use seems appropriate. You make it clear that there is a benefit to holding bitcoins, so wouldn't it be reasonable to pay a fee for that benefit? Why should others pay for your benefit?

There is also a greater benefit in moving millions of dollars worth of bitcoin overseas cheaply, when you compare it with dust transactions.  Yet, both can pay the same.  According to your reasoning, an added fee that is respective to the amount transacted is reasonable, because why would a person who moves $1 billion worth of bitcoin pay the same as I do, when I'm only moving $100?

The answer is that these are the rules set in stone since 2009.  If you want to opt-in to bitcoin, you should acknowledge and accept them.  Otherwise, you're free to use one of the many altcoins that operate under different consensus rules.  

To answer with a counter-question: why should others not pay for my benefit of holding bitcoin since these are the very rules both groups accepted before participating in the network?

[odolvlobo]

There is also a greater benefit in moving millions of dollars worth of bitcoin overseas cheaply, when you compare it with dust transactions.  Yet, both can pay the same.  According to your reasoning, an added fee that is respective to the amount transacted is reasonable, because why would a person who moves $1 billion worth of bitcoin pay the same as I do, when I'm only moving $100?

That is not my reasoning, but your point has merit.

The answer is that these are the rules set in stone since 2009.  If you want to opt-in to bitcoin, you should acknowledge and accept them.  Otherwise, you're free to use one of the many altcoins that operate under different consensus rules.  

Every hard and soft fork is an example of "rules that were set in stone since 2009" that are no longer followed. More importantly, are you advocating that changes to the Bitcoin protocol should not be discussed?

[Medusah]

Every hard and soft fork is an example of "rules that were set in stone since 2009" that are no longer followed.

The core money property rules have not changed, although I agree that the place where we draw the line between what is "core money property" and what is a simple network rule is a little vague.  SegWit could also be considered partially a change in the underlying economics.  However, I think it is completely clear that any change in the monetary policy of bitcoin should be objectively considered a "core money property" change. 

More importantly, are you advocating that changes to the Bitcoin protocol should not be discussed?

Absolutely not.  I don't see where you got this.