Can tail emmision be a soft fork - page 4.

NotATether

legendary

Activity: 1568

Merit: 6660

bitcoincleanup.com / bitmixlist.org

Quote from: tromp on September 13, 2023, 02:16:42 PM

In the proposed soft-fork, pre-softfork nodes don't see Alice sending coins to Bob, since they will see each block as *only* containing a coinbase transaction. It will look to them like Bitcoin has become permanently untransactable.

What the proposal shows is that the notion of soft-fork is not as clear cut as it seems at first, and is really more
of a spectrum, based on how much of the new rules are being verified, or even visible, to old nodes.

I think what Peter Todd is trying to demonstrate is that the coinbase can be along with the rest of the transactions in a block, but the coinbase transaction has a new output that is spent in the autogenerated newCoinbase transaction that can be pretty much anything, as long as it's less than the current block reward.

This does not really create tail emission though, it creates temporary tail emission where part of the mining rewards have to be delayed so that they are received at a later block far past the year 2140. It is no longer possible to do once the block reward is completely exhausted.

But that's going to damage the economics of Bitcoin in the present, so I would not support such a fork.

stwenhao

member

Activity: 74

Merit: 86

Quote from: garlonicon on July 10, 2022, 05:23:54 AM

Quote

Is it desirable, much less moral, for a percentage of the world's wealth to be in the hands of some early whales?

Imagine a system, where in every block, every miner could get one satoshi per 0.01 BTC on that address. In fact, there is no difference between a system with tail supply, and a system with fixed supply, where you can take someone's coins. Because that's what inflation is about: proportions. That's the only thing that matters. So, no hard forks are really needed to create a tail supply, you can instead force all users to pay a "tail supply fee", for example one satoshi per each 0.01 BTC. Then, miners could be forced by a soft-fork, to lock those "tail supply fees" to some future block number, just by using OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY, to increase future block rewards.

And because it is something that can be solved by changing fee policy, no forks are needed to introduce that.

Quote

How would that even work technically? Coins whose keys have been lost cannot be moved...

You can always create a timelocked transaction, that could be mined after block number N. And then, you can publish it, then there are two options:
1) you will move your coins before block N, so the broadcasted version will be invalid
2) you will lose your keys, so after block N, miners will pick it (miners, if it will require no keys, but you can of course decide, what conditions are needed to take it)

tromp

legendary

Activity: 990

Merit: 1108

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on September 13, 2023, 01:47:48 PM

Quote from: HmmMAA on September 13, 2023, 11:59:31 AM

Peter Todd says it's possible to change almost anything even if difficult https://petertodd.org/2016/forced-soft-forks

It can be done, but I presume that the post-softfork nodes will treat the units of the system differently than the pre-softfork nodes. So different, that the post-softfork transactions will not be validated by the pre-softfork. Pre-softfork nodes will receive something like Alice sends 0 coins to Bob (with an extra note indicating that it's a softfork), and in post-softfork nodes, these 0 coins will be accompanied by some signature that spends new, post-softfork coins.

In the proposed soft-fork, pre-softfork nodes don't see Alice sending coins to Bob, since they will see each block as *only* containing a coinbase transaction. It will look to them like Bitcoin has become permanently untransactable.

What the proposal shows is that the notion of soft-fork is not as clear cut as it seems at first, and is really more
of a spectrum, based on how much of the new rules are being verified, or even visible, to old nodes.

BlackHatCoiner

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 7340

Farewell, Leo

Quote from: ?? on ??

I believe someone else can show code of Bitcoin Core (or other full node software) which check whether total of newly mined Bitcoin on a block doesn't exceed current block reward.

Here you go: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/f1a9fd627b1a669c4dfab797da42825230708f2a/src/validation.cpp#L2415

blockReward is a CAmount, and it is the sum of transaction fees plus the amount of GetBlockSubsidy. Provided that currently it start with 50 coins and is divided by 2^halvings, increasing the block subsidy would make this incompatible. However, resulting in less than 21 million coins can be soft forked.

Quote from: HmmMAA on September 13, 2023, 11:59:31 AM

Peter Todd says it's possible to change almost anything even if difficult https://petertodd.org/2016/forced-soft-forks

It can be done, but I presume that the post-softfork nodes will treat the units of the system differently than the pre-softfork nodes. So different, that the post-softfork transactions will not be validated by the pre-softfork. Pre-softfork nodes will receive something like Alice sends 0 coins to Bob (with an extra note indicating that it's a softfork), and in post-softfork nodes, these 0 coins will be accompanied by some signature that spends new, post-softfork coins.

odolvlobo

legendary

Activity: 4466

Merit: 3391

Quote from: konfuzius5278 on September 12, 2023, 04:12:46 AM

So may there be the possibltly that some kind of extra reward can be send by the Algo to the miners by Scrypt or anything else with only a soft fork?

The difference between a hard fork and a soft fork is compatibility. A soft fork is generally preferred because it is compatible with previous consensus rules, and that helps avoid an unintended chain split.

The idea that the difference between the two somehow limits which rules can be changed is misguided because, as Peter Todd demonstrated, anything can be changed with a soft fork.

Quote from: konfuzius5278 on September 13, 2023, 08:49:36 AM

As I said I am not talking of main Emmision, that would cause a hard fork. But you put BTC from one adress to another against UTXO consensus with LN.
And Sidechains etc will put their BTC also on a special adress without any UTXO proof of main chain

Without resorting to Peter Todd's hypothetical 2.0 soft fork, I suppose that it would be possible with a soft fork to create a new on-chain token that is pegged to satoshis.

HmmMAA

hero member

Activity: 1111

Merit: 588

Quote from: konfuzius5278 on September 12, 2023, 04:12:46 AM

Hey,

I read a tweet from someone that said, a BTC tail emmision could be done as soft fork. I have some technically experiance in blockchain so..... the main reward scheme could of course only be changed by hard fork.

But as after Segwit and so on some more things are possible with BTC Script. For example LN gets BTC to one place to another without trust of the main chain

So may there be the possibltly that some kind of extra reward can be send by the Algo to the miners by Scrypt or anything else with only a soft fork?

Please technical informative replies only!

Thanks

Peter Todd says it's possible to change almost anything even if difficult https://petertodd.org/2016/forced-soft-forks

konfuzius5278

member

Activity: 637

Merit: 11

Quote from: dr.hopkins on September 13, 2023, 06:38:52 AM

When it comes to changing Bitcoin's emission, a soft fork wouldn't cut it. The emission schedule is part of Bitcoin's consensus rules, and altering it requires a hard fork, which is a more significant network upgrade. Soft forks generally work within the existing rules, like adding new features. Keep in mind that any changes to Bitcoin's core must undergo extensive scrutiny to ensure the network's security and integrity.

Not main Emmision curve, another way using BTC Script or something else

konfuzius5278

member

Activity: 637

Merit: 11

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: konfuzius5278 on September 12, 2023, 04:22:04 AM

Here is the tweet I finally found it:

https://x.com/nikzh/status/1699980224610385983?s=20

I can't see how it's possible. Node which follow current Bitcoin protocol/consensus would treat block with reward higher than expected as invalid block. I believe someone else can show code of Bitcoin Core (or other full node software) which check whether total of newly mined Bitcoin on a block doesn't exceed current block reward.

As I said I am not talking of main Emmision, that would cause a hard fork. But you put BTC from one adress to another against UTXO consensus with LN.
And Sidechains etc will put their BTC also on a special adress without any UTXO proof of main chain

dr.hopkins

newbie

Activity: 54

Merit: 0

When it comes to changing Bitcoin's emission, a soft fork wouldn't cut it. The emission schedule is part of Bitcoin's consensus rules, and altering it requires a hard fork, which is a more significant network upgrade. Soft forks generally work within the existing rules, like adding new features. Keep in mind that any changes to Bitcoin's core must undergo extensive scrutiny to ensure the network's security and integrity.

konfuzius5278

member

Activity: 637

Merit: 11

Is anyone interested in this topic?

konfuzius5278

member

Activity: 637

Merit: 11

Here is the tweet I finally found it:

https://x.com/nikzh/status/1699980224610385983?s=20

konfuzius5278

member

Activity: 637

Merit: 11

Hey,

I read a tweet from someone that said, a BTC tail emmision could be done as soft fork. I have some technically experiance in blockchain so..... the main reward scheme could of course only be changed by hard fork.

But as after Segwit and so on some more things are possible with BTC Script. For example LN gets BTC to one place to another without trust of the main chain

So may there be the possibltly that some kind of extra reward can be send by the Algo to the miners by Scrypt or anything else with only a soft fork?

Please technical informative replies only!

Thanks

Topic: Can tail emmision be a soft fork - page 4. (Read 946 times)