Peter Todd, demurrage, and the long-term value estimation of BTC collectibles

jwinterm

legendary

Activity: 3164

Merit: 1116

Quote from: tread93 on July 12, 2024, 08:02:53 PM

Quote from: jwinterm on July 12, 2024, 01:21:00 PM

...

It should be the exact opposite and the taxes should be a fraction of what they are because the coins have remained sitting there and unspent. I feel like that should be rewarded and not taxed. Its insane with all the taxes the days, sheesh just give us a break EH?

The idea is to pay miners to secure the network. The talk was given at a Monero conference, and Monero very early on forked to add a so called "tail-emission", which provides a perpetual block reward of 0.6 XMR in addition to tx fees. There are theoretical attacks that may become economically viable/attractive if the block reward portion of Bitcoin blocks was zero, or near zero. This can sound abstract and far-off since block rewards last until 2142 or whatever, but, Bitcoin block rewards become very small in just another three or four halvings, so maybe another decade or two. I guess if someone hasn't moved coins for a long time, they should pay the miners for all that time they received security. Most likely if it was added to Bitcoin (which Todd claims could be done via softfork) I guess the wouldn't retroactively tax people and begin the tax on date of adoption, but I agree with most here that I don't think it will ever be adopted. Just figured I would share and stir the pot a little bit here Cheesy

Braiins has a nice article about it that discusses tail emission and demurrage approaches:
https://braiins.com/blog/bitcoin-fees-security-threats

tread93

hero member

Activity: 1386

Merit: 599

Quote from: jwinterm on July 12, 2024, 01:21:00 PM

I have recently seen someone that frequents this board warning against buying physical coins with too large of a denomination - at some point it becomes kinda crazy no matter who you are - holding 1000 BTC on an old Casascius is kinda wild. Even a 1 or 0.1 BTC piece is prob too much risk for most people that want to hold BTC to afford. I have also seen another thread recently on here about unreadable private keys when someone peeled Shocked

However, I was recently thinking about another possibility I learned of about a year ago that could theoretically affect the valuation of physical coins, especially physical coins with very old outputs.

If you haven't heard, Peter Todd, Bitcoin Core developer, is a promoter of the idea of introducing a demurrage tax system to finance Bitcoin's security budget as the emission tends to zero:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Dy4DeVhk_g

This would amount to a tax on your BTC everytime you send it, and the kicker - the longer the output has been sitting unspent, the higher the tax. This would be a karate kick in the neck to 1000 BTC Casascius holders lol.

If you think this proposal has any merit and more importantly non-zero possibility of adoption, then this should affect your thinking about long-term valuation of coins where the output sits unspent for years or decades...

It should be the exact opposite and the taxes should be a fraction of what they are because the coins have remained sitting there and unspent. I feel like that should be rewarded and not taxed. Its insane with all the taxes the days, sheesh just give us a break EH?

Cryptogreatdane

copper member

Activity: 1100

Merit: 472

The best thing about physical is it can be sold over and over without ever actually swiping the coin. It can remain private forever.

Iced

full member

Activity: 638

Merit: 208

Belgian based crypto-enthusiast

My hair stands on end just at the mention of his name, let alone his ideas the so-called cypherpunk. Though this is just my personal opinion.. he also did some good things like OTS.

The TAX proposal is rather wild..

2stout

hero member

Activity: 2562

Merit: 607

Quote from: aoluain on July 12, 2024, 02:27:09 PM

...and where would the TAX collected go?

supposedly "to finance Bitcoin's security budget as the emission tends to zero"

aoluain

legendary

Activity: 2464

Merit: 1387

...and where would the TAX collected go?

2stout

hero member

Activity: 2562

Merit: 607

This would seem to be antithetical to the tenants of what Bitcoin is all about.

BTCOVERFIATS

member

Activity: 569

Merit: 49

Holder of last resort

Quote from: jwinterm on July 12, 2024, 01:21:00 PM

I have recently seen someone that frequents this board warning against buying physical coins with too large of a denomination - at some point it becomes kinda crazy no matter who you are - holding 1000 BTC on an old Casascius is kinda wild. Even a 1 or 0.1 BTC piece is prob too much risk for most people that want to hold BTC to afford. I have also seen another thread recently on here about unreadable private keys when someone peeled Shocked

However, I was recently thinking about another possibility I learned of about a year ago that could theoretically affect the valuation of physical coins, especially physical coins with very old outputs.

If you haven't heard, Peter Todd, Bitcoin Core developer, is a promoter of the idea of introducing a demurrage tax system to finance Bitcoin's security budget as the emission tends to zero:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Dy4DeVhk_g

This would amount to a tax on your BTC everytime you send it, and the kicker - the longer the output has been sitting unspent, the higher the tax. This would be a karate kick in the neck to 1000 BTC Casascius holders lol.

If you think this proposal has any merit and more importantly non-zero possibility of adoption, then this should affect your thinking about long-term valuation of coins where the output sits unspent for years or decades...

That tax you mentioned in this post is never going to happen. Not worried about that at all.

jwinterm

legendary

Activity: 3164

Merit: 1116

I have recently seen someone that frequents this board warning against buying physical coins with too large of a denomination - at some point it becomes kinda crazy no matter who you are - holding 1000 BTC on an old Casascius is kinda wild. Even a 1 or 0.1 BTC piece is prob too much risk for most people that want to hold BTC to afford. I have also seen another thread recently on here about unreadable private keys when someone peeled Shocked

However, I was recently thinking about another possibility I learned of about a year ago that could theoretically affect the valuation of physical coins, especially physical coins with very old outputs.

If you haven't heard, Peter Todd, Bitcoin Core developer, is a promoter of the idea of introducing a demurrage tax system to finance Bitcoin's security budget as the emission tends to zero:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Dy4DeVhk_g

This would amount to a tax on your BTC everytime you send it, and the kicker - the longer the output has been sitting unspent, the higher the tax. This would be a karate kick in the neck to 1000 BTC Casascius holders lol.

If you think this proposal has any merit and more importantly non-zero possibility of adoption, then this should affect your thinking about long-term valuation of coins where the output sits unspent for years or decades...

Topic: Peter Todd, demurrage, and the long-term value estimation of BTC collectibles (Read 176 times)