On the Instability of Bitcoin Without the Block Reward [pdf]
cs.princeton.edu
On the Instability of Bitcoin Without the Block Reward [pdf]
1–10 of 232 posts
Re: On the Instability of Bitcoin Without the Block Reward [pdf]
#2I may be misunderstanding because I largely skimmed, but it sounds like this is saying this is due to the variation in the transaction fee amounts.
Assuming that that's the idea:
What if only a fraction of the transaction fees go to the miner of the block including those transactions, and the remainder is "stored", and doled out gradually over the next n blocks, or something like that, resulting in it being a fairly steady rate of payout?
Re: On the Instability of Bitcoin Without the Block Reward [pdf]
#3This is the first interesting paper I see here on HN about Bitcoin.
While many people think that Bitcoin's energy usage is too high, I honestly hope that it's high enough to deter a nation state sized attacker.
Many Bitcoiners argue that miner rewards shouldn't decrease more, but at the same time it's too late to change the concensus on it.
Re: On the Instability of Bitcoin Without the Block Reward [pdf]
#4> Perhaps this will give rise to coin-hopping, i.e., miners hopping to the cryptocurrency with the largest transaction fee pool.
Similar thing happened during the time Bitcoin Cash used legacy difficulty adjustment mechanism - it was easy to tell when to switch to mine that coin, and when to BTC. But that was coin-hopping for rewards, not tx fees.
Re: On the Instability of Bitcoin Without the Block Reward [pdf]
#5Sounds like its based on a flawed assumption:
"Now, immediately after a block is found, there will be no more transactions in the network to be claimed by a miner making the next block"
The fact is there is usually a large backlog of transactions.
Re: On the Instability of Bitcoin Without the Block Reward [pdf]
#6Is there no date on this paper?
It seems to be from 2016, or thereabouts.
Re: On the Instability of Bitcoin Without the Block Reward [pdf]
#7I may be misunderstanding because I largely skimmed, but it sounds like this is saying this is due to the variation in the transaction fee amounts. Assuming that that's the idea: What if only a fraction of the transaction fees go to the miner of the block including those transactions, and the remainder is "stored", and doled out gradually over the next n blocks, or something like that, resulting in it being a fairly…
Say, the total payout of mining a block is half of the fees from the block you mined, a quarter of the fees from the block your parent mined, an eighth of the block before that, etc. The fee payout of mining a block becomes the sum of block_n_fees * 1/n^2 for the last n blocks (bounded by the minimum respresentable value, "1 Nakamoto" or whatever it's called).
Re: On the Instability of Bitcoin Without the Block Reward [pdf]
#8I may be misunderstanding because I largely skimmed, but it sounds like this is saying this is due to the variation in the transaction fee amounts. Assuming that that's the idea: What if only a fraction of the transaction fees go to the miner of the block including those transactions, and the remainder is "stored", and doled out gradually over the next n blocks, or something like that, resulting in it being a fairly…
Say, the total payout of mining a block is half of the fees from the block you mined, a quarter of the fees from the block your parent mined, an eighth of the block before that, etc. The fee payout of mining a block becomes the sum of block_n_fees * 1/n^2 for the last n blocks (bounded by the minimum respresentable value, "1 Nakamoto" or whatever it's called).
Satoshi
Re: On the Instability of Bitcoin Without the Block Reward [pdf]
#9I think demand for transactions is an issue. When it fluctuates, miners' earning becomes volatile. Some blockchains, like Grin and Dogecoin, have tail emission. But that's a pretty dumb solution. The reward/supply rate would approach 0. It's effectively the same as zero new supply unless dev teams decide to increase rewards. Changing reward defeats the purpose of decentralization. This problem is prevalent in any limited supply crypto.
I've been involved with Bitflate, a crypto with 7% inflation. We propose running a parallel inflationary blockchain. Inflation discourages hoarding. People have incentives to spend. We can also "mix" the inflationary crypto with Bitcoin. This mixing allows us to create digital native crypto with any inflation rate. It also creates demand for transactions on the Bitcoin blockchain.
More information about the project: https://bitflate.org/
Whitepaper: https://bitflate.org/bitflate.pdf
PS: Some bitcoiners think that fee volatility is not a big issue. There will always be demand for transactions. Miners just have to deal with volatility. But fee volatility will translate to price volatility. It contradicts with the claim that Bitcoin will become stable.
Re: On the Instability of Bitcoin Without the Block Reward [pdf]
#10Everyone has by now grown used to having cryptocurrencies that can't be used to buy anything, but having a cryptocurrency that's not even worth mining will mark a new level of conceptual purity that will no doubt propel Bitcoin past the $100,000 mark.