Pages:
Author

Topic: "Surprisingly, Tail Emission Is Not Inflationary" -- A post by Peter Todd - page 2. (Read 2645 times)

hero member
Activity: 789
Merit: 1909
Quote
That would not be a good solution. It would make L2 solutions like LN impossible to implement because the sum of the total inputs would always be changing.
There is no need to update it every second. The same with halvings, you have them every four years, not every block. And the same with difficulty adjustments, you have them every two weeks, not every block. And the same with the coinbase maturity, you have it set to 100 blocks. So, the sum of the total inputs can be calculated in the same way for a long time, and then be adjusted every sometimes, just like other parameters are adjusted. Also, coins can be timelocked to the future, so it won't be "I lock some coins now, and the next miner will get it". It should rather be: "I lock some coins now, and 210,000 blocks later, some miner will get it".

Another thing is that such things can be executed on a fee level, for example by adding a rule, that each miner has to collect at least 0.01 BTC in fees, and lock it for 210,000 blocks. Also note that if you want to get 0.01 BTC tail supply, then it doesn't matter if it would be 0.001 BTC paid by one user, and 0.009 BTC paid by another user, or if they both will pay 0.005 BTC. So, tail supply fees can be regulated in a free market way, for example by having minimal fees set to 0.5 sats/vB miner fee, and 0.5 sats/vB tail supply fee, then it will be perfectly compatible with 1 sat/vB fees.

So, it is all about how many coins each miner could get now, and how many coins should be locked to the future. Just by adjusting coinbase rewards today, you can change supply for the future blocks. And again: what about RSK, and their algorithm of smoothing block rewards?
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 18492
I don't think a large holder would be acting rationally by doing this. I think this holder would be better off selling their coin if they were needing to provide security for everyone.
You say in your very next sentence that without a tail emission users are incentivized to hold on to their coin for as long as possible and not sell it. It would be entirely rational for a large holder to spend a very small amount of their coin on securing the network if they believe the value of the rest of their coin will be worth more in the future than it is worth to them if they were to sell everything now. You are also assuming that the only value that the large holder cares about is the fiat value of their bitcoin, and not about any of the other benefits bitcoin brings as a superior form of money.
copper member
Activity: 1610
Merit: 1898
Amazon Prime Member #7
Debasement doesn’t reduce fees tho, these two aren’t correlated. You would pay the same fees, regardless of debasement or not. The concern of some people is that transaction fees alone wouldn’t be enough to compensate miners and thus secure the network.

Reducing fees wouldn’t be that simple, you need to let more transactions in. But this comes at the cost of decentralization, depending on how much throughput you let in, because it becomes much harder to run a node. And if blockspace isn’t scarce enough, transactions fees are less likely to be enough to compensate miners, because it’s based on a fee market.

That statement demonstrates a misunderstanding about the economics of Bitcoin mining.

Here is how it works: If a miner feels that they are not being adequately compensated for mining (simply stated, they aren't making a profit), they will stop mining, and the difficulty will adjust to increase the compensation for the miners that remain. That process will continue until the remaining miners feel that they are being adequately compensated. So, only in an exceptional scenarios will transaction fees not be enough to compensate miners.

However, as @tadamichi also states, there is a danger that low transaction fees could become a security risk. It is the value of the block reward (and not the number of miners) that determines the level of security against a 51% attack.

This is not quite right. What you say is true only for economically rational miners, and only to the extent that the miners are strickly rational in regards to the economics of mining bitcoin.

One of the assumptions that satoshi made when designing the security of bitcon was that the majority of miners would be honest. Currently, it is very expensive for a bad actor to control a large percentage of the network hashrate, but if total block rewards (block subsidy plus transaction fees) become too low, it will become less expensive for a bad actor to control a majority of the network hashrate. I would also point out that if a miner was not being rewarded enough for their mining activities, in addition to turning off their equipment, they will also often attempt to sell their equipment.


Another thing is that tail supply can be reached by taking coins from people, without increasing 21 million coins limit. Then, it will be obvious to everyone, what this proposal is truly about. Because if more coins will be produced, then it is more sneaky, because many people don't understand, how inflation works, but if they will start losing satoshis, then they will see that in a crystal clear way.
That would not be a good solution. It would make L2 solutions like LN impossible to implement because the sum of the total inputs would always be changing. If it were decided to implement a tail supply, it would be superior to simply issue more than 21M coin.


Then you have three options
Fourth option: Large holders of bitcoin are incentivized to mine, even with minimal or zero fees or block subsidy, in order to protect both the security and the value of their bitcoin.

The outcome for these users would be little different than having a tail supply. With them mining for zero reward, they would be spending a small proportion of their money to secure the rest of their money. With a tail supply, they would be losing a small proportion of the value of their money to secure the rest of their money. Arguments against this is that it is effectively discriminating against the good will of the users who partake in mining, and of course the free rider problem.
I don't think a large holder would be acting rationally by doing this. I think this holder would be better off selling their coin if they were needing to provide security for everyone.



From an economics perspective, having modest inflation is generally a positive outcome. Modest inflation will encourage people to actually spend their coin on goods/services rather than simply hoarding their coin until they absolutatly need to spend it. Modest inflation should encourage additional adoption, as it will cause the bitcoin ecosystem/economy to grow.
full member
Activity: 168
Merit: 417
武士道
Debasement doesn’t reduce fees tho, these two aren’t correlated. You would pay the same fees, regardless of debasement or not.
I don't know about that.
Thats how it is tho, it doesnt change anything about how transaction fees work.

Quote
The concern of some people is that transaction fees alone wouldn’t be enough to compensate miners and thus secure the network.
That's a pretty generic statement. How would we know if the transaction fees were not compensating miners enough? Would a red light pop up on peoples' bitcoin core?
We would know when too many miners started behaving dishonestly or too many couldnt afford to mine anymore, when honest miners cant keep outpacing attackers. The compensation just serves as an incentive for miners to stay honest, theres no fixed amount that determines whats enough for people to stay honest. It works on the basis that a majority stays honest, doesnt matter how.

Its a valid concern, but there are good counter arguments to this.

OK but again, the phrase "transactions fees are less likely to be enough to compensate miners" doesn't explain what happens if that's the case. Does a red light pop up on peoples electrum and refuse to allow them to do a transaction? And say "we're not being compensated enough to mine your transaction" ?
Higher risks of 51% attacks, so possible risk of double spendings, preventing transactions from getting confirmed etc.

As well, who gets to decide if miners are being "compensated enough"? Do they have some type of minimum wage for bitcoin mining?
If its extremely expensive to carry out these attacks, then its less likely to happen. Especially if it would be more profitable to work for the network than to attack it. If a majority remains honest regardless of compensation then they can still outpace any attacker, but they have running expenses so even someone honest will need compensation to keep mining. So if its profitable for a big amount of people, its likely that a big amount of people will mine honestly. No one wants to bite the hand that feeds them.

Debasement doesn’t reduce fees tho, these two aren’t correlated. You would pay the same fees, regardless of debasement or not. The concern of some people is that transaction fees alone wouldn’t be enough to compensate miners and thus secure the network.

Reducing fees wouldn’t be that simple, you need to let more transactions in. But this comes at the cost of decentralization, depending on how much throughput you let in, because it becomes much harder to run a node. And if blockspace isn’t scarce enough, transactions fees are less likely to be enough to compensate miners, because it’s based on a fee market.

That statement demonstrates a lack of understanding about the economics of Bitcoin mining.

Here is how it works: If a miner feels that they are not being adequately compensated for mining (simply stated, they aren't making a profit), they will stop mining, and the difficulty will adjust to increase the compensation for the miners that remain. That process will continue until the remaining miners feel that they are being adequately compensated. So, only in an exceptional scenarios will transaction fees not be enough to compensate miners.

However, as @tadamichi also states, there is a danger that low transaction fees could become a security risk. It is the value of the block reward (and not the number of miners) that determines the level of security against a 51% attack.

Ofc im not dumb, all i said is that its not easily possible to reduce fees without potential security or decentralization drawbacks. Idk if you correctly understood what i wrote. If there would be more blockspace than demand for it, there would be lower transaction fees than otherwise, its just logical. There would be no icentive to pay more than the minimum fee, when this one would always make it into the block anyways. So you need to maintain some level of scarcity, for achieving higher fees. Demand needs to outgrow blockspace, otherwise no one would choose to pay higher fees.  And when miners solely rely on fees for compensation, higher total fees will be a bigger incentive to keep miners honest/ enabling more miners to mine profitably, than lower ones.

I never said that fees wont be enough compensation, i think they will be. And ofc the number of miners matters too to a certain degree, if there was just 5 miners left, it couldnt seriously be considered secure anymore(ik this wont happen).
legendary
Activity: 4228
Merit: 3101
Debasement doesn’t reduce fees tho, these two aren’t correlated. You would pay the same fees, regardless of debasement or not. The concern of some people is that transaction fees alone wouldn’t be enough to compensate miners and thus secure the network.

Reducing fees wouldn’t be that simple, you need to let more transactions in. But this comes at the cost of decentralization, depending on how much throughput you let in, because it becomes much harder to run a node. And if blockspace isn’t scarce enough, transactions fees are less likely to be enough to compensate miners, because it’s based on a fee market.

That statement demonstrates a misunderstanding about the economics of Bitcoin mining.

Here is how it works: If a miner feels that they are not being adequately compensated for mining (simply stated, they aren't making a profit), they will stop mining, and the difficulty will adjust to increase the compensation for the miners that remain. That process will continue until the remaining miners feel that they are being adequately compensated. So, only in an exceptional scenarios will transaction fees not be enough to compensate miners.

However, as @tadamichi also states, there is a danger that low transaction fees could become a security risk. It is the value of the block reward (and not the number of miners) that determines the level of security against a 51% attack.
sr. member
Activity: 1008
Merit: 348
Debasement doesn’t reduce fees tho, these two aren’t correlated. You would pay the same fees, regardless of debasement or not.
I don't know about that.

Quote
The concern of some people is that transaction fees alone wouldn’t be enough to compensate miners and thus secure the network.
That's a pretty generic statement. How would we know if the transaction fees were not compensating miners enough? Would a red light pop up on peoples' bitcoin core?

Quote
Reducing fees wouldn’t be that simple, you need to let more transactions in. But this comes at the cost of decentralization, depending on how much throughput you let in, because it becomes much harder to run a node. And if blockspace isn’t scarce enough, transactions fees are less likely to be enough to compensate miners, because it’s based on a fee market.
OK but again, the phrase "transactions fees are less likely to be enough to compensate miners" doesn't explain what happens if that's the case. Does a red light pop up on peoples electrum and refuse to allow them to do a transaction? And say "we're not being compensated enough to mine your transaction" ?

As well, who gets to decide if miners are being "compensated enough"? Do they have some type of minimum wage for bitcoin mining?
legendary
Activity: 2128
Merit: 6871
I've interviewed Peter about it, hope some of his answers contribute to this debate. Wish I read Greg's reply before hitting the "record" button  Cheesy
I appreciate your effort, but instead of interviewing only Peter Todd it would be much better if you called someone else to join who thinks tail emission is a bad idea,
that way we could have a both sides talking about this and we could get a better idea of all the pros and cons for this proposal.
Maybe gmaxwell would be good candidate and he posted his views in this topic, but I am sure there are others you could call.

full member
Activity: 168
Merit: 417
武士道
If proponents of perpetual debasement actually believed that such a scheme would result in more security they would fork off. The fact that they are not even considering it shows that they know such a fork would fail.

i dont think bitcoin should be changed to have debasement but i also didn't like the idea that miners going to need to have higher transaction fees to maintain their income. who wants to have to pay higher transaction fees?
Debasement doesn’t reduce fees tho, these two aren’t correlated. You would pay the same fees, regardless of debasement or not. The concern of some people is that transaction fees alone wouldn’t be enough to compensate miners and thus secure the network.

Reducing fees wouldn’t be that simple, you need to let more transactions in. But this comes at the cost of decentralization, depending on how much throughput you let in, because it becomes much harder to run a node. And if blockspace isn’t scarce enough, transactions fees are less likely to be enough to compensate miners, because it’s based on a fee market.

they will just use something else if the fees gets too high, i would anyway.
Lightning or sidechain proposals that will likely come in the future. Lightning is more suited for daily payments anyways, because of the speed of transacting. But this doesn’t mean the actual chain becomes unusable for other kinds of transactions, even if the fees ar higher. Different kind of transactions require different levels of security.

unless i was under some idea that the purpose of bitcoin is to hold it forever until it goes way up and then dump it.
It’s not.
sr. member
Activity: 1008
Merit: 348
If proponents of perpetual debasement actually believed that such a scheme would result in more security they would fork off. The fact that they are not even considering it shows that they know such a fork would fail.

i dont think bitcoin should be changed to have debasement but i also didn't like the idea that miners going to need to have higher transaction fees to maintain their income. who wants to have to pay higher transaction fees? they will just use something else if the fees gets too high, i would anyway. unless i was under some idea that the purpose of bitcoin is to hold it forever until it goes way up and then dump it.
newbie
Activity: 12
Merit: 21
If proponents of perpetual debasement actually believed that such a scheme would result in more security they would fork off. The fact that they are not even considering it shows that they know such a fork would fail.
newbie
Activity: 25
Merit: 46
I've interviewed Peter about it, hope some of his answers contribute to this debate. Wish I read Greg's reply before hitting the "record" button  Cheesy

YouTube video: https://youtu.be/27Bp9ZU2KWw

Audio podcast (no registration required, use Tor browser for privacy): https://bitcoin-takeover.com/audio/?name=2022-07-25_s11_e11_peter_todd_on_bitcoin_inflation__lightning__privacy.mp3
member
Activity: 280
Merit: 30
Reasonable people, see Proof of stake as the tech evolution needed to propel the tech to new heights of innovation.
It is pretty much, off-topic, if not vandalism. There is a topic for PoW/PoS debate, Good luck convincing people about your blind faith in Proof of Stake

Actually you mentioned PoS 1st.   Wink
  • Govs all over the world are targeting bitcoin miners for imposing bans, extra taxes, etc. Meanwhile, PoS shills are aggressively promoting their stupid ideas about
    PoS being the next generation, environmentally correct, energy efficient alternative to PoW, blah, blah.  
  • Bitcoin is not adopted as means of payment, not even in the horizon, instead ,speculators (people like you), along with gamblers and scammers are dominating the marketplace.
  • Bitcoin is not even ready for mass adoption, right now with 4-5 TPS.
  • ...
The most stupid and irresponsible thing would be ignoring everything


Your one confusion is this , there is no PoS vs PoW anymore.
PoS won, and only a few PoW coins are left to evolve or die,
PoS supporters could care less about the dying PoW tech.

The Coming battle with PoW is this:
It is PoW vs People right to use affordable energy.
PoW vs Having an Air Conditioner
PoW vs Having electric Heat
PoW vs Having Lights
PoW vs Having Hot Water/Cook Food
PoW vs Playing Video Games
PoW vs Having Freezer/Refrigerator
PoW vs Basically anything else using electricity

Which is why PoW is a dead end, because eventually it prevents people from using energy for anything else.

FYI:  Be sure and sign the petition to stop btc PoW mining in Navarro county, Texas.
https://www.change.org/p/no-to-riot-bitcoin-mine-in-navarro-county
Quote
Navarro County/ Corsicana TX is looking to allow an industrial Bitcoin Mining operation to move here & use our resources.

We do NOT want this enormous burden on our already fragile infrastructure.

We do not want the increase in water and electricity bills.

We do not want the increase in environmental temperature in the immediate vicinity of the factory-that-produces-nothing.

We do not want the noise pollution that 500,000 computers running 24-7 will produce.

We do not want our county to facilitate in the illegal activity Bitcoin is used for, such as money laundering, child, human and sex trafficking, tax evasion and drug trafficking.

WE. DO. NOT. WANT. THIS. FACILITY. IN. NAVARRO. COUNTY.

This is NOT a done deal.

We have the power & authority to deny access to our municipal water supply.  We're in a drought and already experience brown-outs during the summer months.

This factory-that-produces-nothing will affect every single citizen of Navarro County and MUST BE STOPPED!

People are trying to ban PoW mining to save their communities.
 Cool

Which part of "it is off-topic" don't you get? Go whine about Proof-of-Work elsewhere. This isn't the proper thread.

No one wants to use that proof of waste circlejerk topic you created , kat.
(It smells like old kitty litter.)

Why don't you put me on ignore, so you quit wasting my time,
or does that lower your payment in satoshis to spread propaganda?


Plus, I was not the 1st person to use the PoS term in this topic.  Smiley

Maybe you should just have the mods ban all posts with PoS in it, since you now want to claim btctalk owner status, kat.


Also you are one to talk about being off-topic.
Sorry if that's off-topic, but isn't the whole "use a watchtower" option obtuse? So, you prefer paying a third party monthly to watch the chain in case for cheating attempt, wherein there's trust involved and you don't gain the same level of privacy, and not paying for a power supplier, to be sure you'll be running 24/7? On top of that, you're connected with people who have a reputation to maintain. Not only won't they choose to cheat because of the loss of money (from the penalty transaction), but because of their fame preservation.


OK listen up everyone,
No one is allowed to Mention
PoS or Proof of Stake or any potential issues that are derogatory toward bitcoin.
According to a decree from blackhatcoiner/kat aka dumbhatcoiner.

See if we can't make kat happy.

aliashraf pay attention since you started all of this.

 Cheesy

FYI:
There goes any debate, just sing hymns of praise to btc from now on.  
Well BTC is a cult, what did you expect?   Tongue
legendary
Activity: 1344
Merit: 6415
Farewell, Leo
nonsense
Which part of "it is off-topic" don't you get? Go whine about Proof-of-Work elsewhere. This isn't the proper thread.
member
Activity: 280
Merit: 30
Reasonable people, see Proof of stake as the tech evolution needed to propel the tech to new heights of innovation.
It is pretty much, off-topic, if not vandalism. There is a topic for PoW/PoS debate, Good luck convincing people about your blind faith in Proof of Stake

Actually you mentioned PoS 1st.   Wink
  • Govs all over the world are targeting bitcoin miners for imposing bans, extra taxes, etc. Meanwhile, PoS shills are aggressively promoting their stupid ideas about
    PoS being the next generation, environmentally correct, energy efficient alternative to PoW, blah, blah.  
  • Bitcoin is not adopted as means of payment, not even in the horizon, instead ,speculators (people like you), along with gamblers and scammers are dominating the marketplace.
  • Bitcoin is not even ready for mass adoption, right now with 4-5 TPS.
  • ...
The most stupid and irresponsible thing would be ignoring everything


Your one confusion is this , there is no PoS vs PoW anymore.
PoS won, and only a few PoW coins are left to evolve or die,
PoS supporters could care less about the dying PoW tech.

The Coming battle with PoW is this:
It is PoW vs People right to use affordable energy.
PoW vs Having an Air Conditioner
PoW vs Having electric Heat
PoW vs Having Lights
PoW vs Having Hot Water/Cook Food
PoW vs Playing Video Games
PoW vs Having Freezer/Refrigerator
PoW vs Basically anything else using electricity

Which is why PoW is a dead end, because eventually it prevents people from using energy for anything else.

FYI:  Be sure and sign the petition to stop btc PoW mining in Navarro county, Texas.
https://www.change.org/p/no-to-riot-bitcoin-mine-in-navarro-county
Quote
Navarro County/ Corsicana TX is looking to allow an industrial Bitcoin Mining operation to move here & use our resources.

We do NOT want this enormous burden on our already fragile infrastructure.

We do not want the increase in water and electricity bills.

We do not want the increase in environmental temperature in the immediate vicinity of the factory-that-produces-nothing.

We do not want the noise pollution that 500,000 computers running 24-7 will produce.

We do not want our county to facilitate in the illegal activity Bitcoin is used for, such as money laundering, child, human and sex trafficking, tax evasion and drug trafficking.

WE. DO. NOT. WANT. THIS. FACILITY. IN. NAVARRO. COUNTY.

This is NOT a done deal.

We have the power & authority to deny access to our municipal water supply.  We're in a drought and already experience brown-outs during the summer months.

This factory-that-produces-nothing will affect every single citizen of Navarro County and MUST BE STOPPED!

People are trying to ban PoW mining to save their communities.
 Cool
legendary
Activity: 1526
Merit: 6442
bitcoincleanup.com / bitmixlist.org
Quote
Further precision increases are impossible unless the unit for fee rates is changed in all new clients
There is no such need, because you can allow free transactions, and then put more restrictions on top of that. Allowing free transactions is possible without any changes in code, the only needed change is in configuration file.
Quote
Code:
minrelaytxfee=0.00000000
blockmintxfee=0.00000000
dustrelayfee=0.00000000

Well yes, that is another way to implement that solution, as you've already mentioned to me in an earlier post.
hero member
Activity: 789
Merit: 1909
Quote
Further precision increases are impossible unless the unit for fee rates is changed in all new clients
There is no such need, because you can allow free transactions, and then put more restrictions on top of that. Allowing free transactions is possible without any changes in code, the only needed change is in configuration file.
Quote
Code:
minrelaytxfee=0.00000000
blockmintxfee=0.00000000
dustrelayfee=0.00000000
Also note that if you have 1000-of-1000 multisig Taproot address, then you can have one satoshi on-chain, where everyone owns one millisatoshi off-chain, and then, all sub-units can be enforced by signatures. And if you want to have any on-chain representation of those fractional satoshis, you can use zeroes, and then connect those outputs in such transactions, then skipping any zero satoshi output in such transaction would make other signatures invalid.

But we have a separate topic for that: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/representing-fractional-satoshis-in-difficulty-like-format-5330102
legendary
Activity: 1526
Merit: 6442
bitcoincleanup.com / bitmixlist.org
Tail emission is a non-issue for btc, as lost coins are to be replaced not by new coins,
but by increasing the decimal points used to the right side of the decimal.
BTC currently uses 8 points to the right of the decimal,
LN will use 12 points  to the right of the decimal.

We can easily support up to 4 additional decimal points in L1, because the fee rate is 1000 sats/Kilobyte. So only a soft fork is needed to add a new entry in txin/txout, with the remaining 4 decimals and then lower the command line option of maxfeerate to 1 (sats/Kilobyte).

Quote
And that number can always be increased , which increases the usable units, while never increasing the actual coded 21 million supply.

Further precision increases are impossible unless the unit for fee rates is changed in all new clients (as the maxfeerate must be an integer), which will not be done. Besides, increasing the precision of the coins does not imply implementing tail emmission, because miners are already accepting these small values, but they can't do anything meaningful with them currently.

P.S. I do not like the idea of tail emission in the first place. I'm more of a "people will migrate to LN" guy.
legendary
Activity: 1344
Merit: 6415
Farewell, Leo
Take this shit seriously, and don't propose changes just to soothe your ego.
You're here since 2011 and you've yet to understand that making discussion, proposing changes and producing consensus is what take the cake? We soothe no ego, and even if we do, that's how it works, sorry.

Bitcoin was not discovered. It was invented, and whatever is invented by a person can also be changed, recreated, molded by a person. We need none of your permission to do it. There's no such thing as democracy in this system. You're the one who's, crucially, responsible for your monetary policy, and who's an economic resource for those who follow that same policy. You don't gain this shit elsewhere. That's why it's so valuable.

We have a problem. We seek for a solution. You're free to disapprove it, and if the overwhelming majority acts likewise, then it's likely not a viable solution. But, discussion needs to be made, to reach to a conclusion. Otherwise your ecosystem might falter on its own. Granted, tail emission or any other change in mining economics cut no ice, but acknowledge that the system's security might be at some crisp risk in the future.
legendary
Activity: 1456
Merit: 1174
Always remember the cause!
Reasonable people, see Proof of stake as the tech evolution needed to propel the tech to new heights of innovation.
It is pretty much, off-topic, if not vandalism. There is a topic for PoW/PoS debate, Good luck convincing people about your blind faith in Proof of Sh*t.
sr. member
Activity: 1008
Merit: 348

Allow me to simplify.

Don't fuck with my money.
that type of advocacy isn't going to go very far in convincing anyone that changes aren't necessary but anyhow.

Quote
This isn't an "experiment" anymore. The moment people incorporated it into their lives and DEPEND on it -- it ceases to be something that you can view as your personal petri dish.
bitcoin is an experiment. do your own due diligence before putting your money in. people are always going to be proposing changes to bitcoin.

Quote
Take this shit seriously, and don't propose changes just to soothe your ego. This is a real system that people depend on. We could give a shit about how clever you think you are.

Don't fuck with OUR money.
people are always going to be proposing changes to bitcoin. the reason they do that is to try and make it "better". that's what you signed up for when you put money into bitcoin. is that development process. DYODD.

Quote

Got it?
yeah, I got that you don't want a tail emission but unfortunately, just because you don't want that doesn't mean someone else is not going to be advocating for it and arguing its technical merits. you'll might want to argue against it based on technical reasoning. because saying "don't mess with my money" is kind of ridiculous sounding honestly. someone with the "don't f*** with my money mentality" probably should be keeping their money under their mattress.
Pages:
Jump to: