Yes, less hand wavy, and it comports with what I thought you were saying. Thanks.
But I’m not sure it overcomes my point. In 5 halvings (~2040), the subsidy is ~19M sats. Holding the fee at 25M sats, that fully covers the current security budget at a PPP of $450k/₿ in today’s dollars.
In 10 halvings (~2064), the subsidy will be 610k sats/block. A few of 25M sats/block would need to have a PPP of ~$761k/₿ in today’s dollars for the same budget as today.
At the limit (0 subsidy, in 2141), the same budget is maintained (for a fee of 25M sats/block) at a PPP of $780k/₿.
That seems a rather bearish PPP price point for 2040, 2064, and 2141.
If the PPP rises faster than this (which pretty much everyone in Bitcoin believes), then the security budget increases relative to today. Also, if total block fees go up, the security budget increases. Of course, missing these to the downside means the budget goes down, relative.
Drivechains are argued to increase the net block fee, but they’re not the only thing which can do that. And many argue that they do it in a potentially negative manner. Other techniques will also increase the net fee (or reduce the per-effective-tx fee, such as LN channels). As adoption increases, that will also bid up the fee, but PPP increases should act to push it down. So I feel 0.25₿ (25M sats/block) is pretty reasonable, long term.
So, I’m not yet convinced that the security mode is as fragile as you are suggesting.
arceris / Arceris
npub1k7t…8edl
2023-08-14 17:17:07
in reply to nevent1q…ksjp
Author Public Key
npub1k7tcreyu0w970fxsht8ccw54az2yh27agf4x2s92crwam9mw9cws558edlPublished at
2023-08-14 17:17:07Event JSON
{
"id": "e7d2ac6ec547bcaaea915e801d19879e3f8d3f920d5eb79317dc54c9aaedd505",
"pubkey": "b79781e49c7b8be7a4d0bacf8c3a95e8944babdd426a6540aac0dddd976e2e1d",
"created_at": 1692026227,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"042cd670ea6d738982ad9e046d37e59b89e5cd40c3ae1bfd5094f220c4f95a42"
],
[
"e",
"0546d0419cd2e5c96f7a88a724115442c02ed5e7f11749e05379611aa846a5d0"
],
[
"p",
"de7ecd1e2976a6adb2ffa5f4db81a7d812c8bb6698aa00dcf1e76adb55efd645"
]
],
"content": "Yes, less hand wavy, and it comports with what I thought you were saying. Thanks.\n\nBut I’m not sure it overcomes my point. In 5 halvings (~2040), the subsidy is ~19M sats. Holding the fee at 25M sats, that fully covers the current security budget at a PPP of $450k/₿ in today’s dollars.\n\nIn 10 halvings (~2064), the subsidy will be 610k sats/block. A few of 25M sats/block would need to have a PPP of ~$761k/₿ in today’s dollars for the same budget as today.\n\nAt the limit (0 subsidy, in 2141), the same budget is maintained (for a fee of 25M sats/block) at a PPP of $780k/₿.\n\nThat seems a rather bearish PPP price point for 2040, 2064, and 2141.\n\nIf the PPP rises faster than this (which pretty much everyone in Bitcoin believes), then the security budget increases relative to today. Also, if total block fees go up, the security budget increases. Of course, missing these to the downside means the budget goes down, relative.\n\nDrivechains are argued to increase the net block fee, but they’re not the only thing which can do that. And many argue that they do it in a potentially negative manner. Other techniques will also increase the net fee (or reduce the per-effective-tx fee, such as LN channels). As adoption increases, that will also bid up the fee, but PPP increases should act to push it down. So I feel 0.25₿ (25M sats/block) is pretty reasonable, long term.\n\nSo, I’m not yet convinced that the security mode is as fragile as you are suggesting.",
"sig": "c16ea443c29d4343fd456190cb83348262ed7d78173f2c9aeee147a46efbd7a88b6fd67365b1e4d98f5810775f97a1233d8e5d98432bcd9c24becbd88c8cd7f2"
}