diff options
| author | Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org> | 2017-05-12 23:43:59 -0700 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2017-05-13 06:43:51 +0000 |
| commit | 04adb3d9c4460138040810c178f3d364f43f8237 (patch) | |
| tree | 2922c094d0d872bf04bc7f5d85d80bd3ca70ce33 | |
| parent | 7ff0400e09533e870537a63ed4c889e5de1d03cd (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-04adb3d9c4460138040810c178f3d364f43f8237.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-04adb3d9c4460138040810c178f3d364f43f8237.zip | |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP: Block signal enforcement via tx fees
| -rw-r--r-- | 08/68901740a4d3c80af7c91fc54816ebe0b6e1ae | 200 |
1 files changed, 200 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/08/68901740a4d3c80af7c91fc54816ebe0b6e1ae b/08/68901740a4d3c80af7c91fc54816ebe0b6e1ae new file mode 100644 index 000000000..15bd2ad2b --- /dev/null +++ b/08/68901740a4d3c80af7c91fc54816ebe0b6e1ae @@ -0,0 +1,200 @@ +Return-Path: <eric@voskuil.org> +Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org + [172.17.192.35]) + by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 573AF4A6 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Sat, 13 May 2017 06:43:51 +0000 (UTC) +X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 +Received: from mail-pf0-f182.google.com (mail-pf0-f182.google.com + [209.85.192.182]) + by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43EA6CD + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Sat, 13 May 2017 06:43:50 +0000 (UTC) +Received: by mail-pf0-f182.google.com with SMTP id e193so39674347pfh.0 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Fri, 12 May 2017 23:43:50 -0700 (PDT) +DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; + d=voskuil-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; + h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent + :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; + bh=hJn3WpNwWoLAENo3f5vMOyYVig36SLsnA7UQnU6MUjw=; + b=XCEJeby3A/RbhmrEz79m9bFquw2CGKpILawvgkG+70sbEV5wSVKfYoX980uRcvRCxJ + eCDFMQlNY9cWvspufJ/ebs62obP6Fta626WionpyLKK0+QTiZ6kni3Loc4q7oejuZZtq + kYVIvamyG4oMBXYsLGPT4QgVYUPjCfdT3HQpVL0tMJd6pWnQndvqN3aLkptOSo0CxvSh + CyYzXMa1r/ntauA4oaMqbKLMpww5gEtH8peaWTGf391inmkExgI6cbj/9VSH7p6Vrq+l + ckcZXy2GnuJa+td2cJoDGrghutOXl359mCAprDrzxBNW7uqt5A0O0KjbmoyBjx2HsRHF + +ehw== +X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; + d=1e100.net; s=20161025; + h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date + :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; + bh=hJn3WpNwWoLAENo3f5vMOyYVig36SLsnA7UQnU6MUjw=; + b=Rr+YVCnpa3RoMc5Xd96Pzjro+LyuX1K6cD8nAjOefLN45cdo0+hNyg14KkiYLmr/ET + xrZwQfj0f9antxTnNJ0RJrUYRB/nsGSnqaBOVpUh2DxKXec1/2QYubDw5jeObJuFeBeX + sHqkTmkFq58qE5R5vozRIje3v+vaH9ACESTRyQ3/OIaHn7QVM7RKT1VkudOZAS5LnRlQ + /IG05vL97B0e6zuC+8bV32acLZMTu3kLR7d7VrNCtI7xia1gbUXlMrBwJQfsb2IFDMxw + Cy1W6Re9Vm1ldWI9p58jUUvLPdWn5tYHpQrWsNRf3PHFhL19UPgwiGymez0wGlyXk4kf + /M6Q== +X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcAcaCrbZtgtRvdDRL6pflUZE/eWK1zY6hwW/SrwS3C5vO8iKsvV + r1jch97lewj20Q== +X-Received: by 10.84.232.205 with SMTP id x13mr10742690plm.7.1494657829811; + Fri, 12 May 2017 23:43:49 -0700 (PDT) +Received: from ?IPv6:2601:600:9000:d69e:61d3:178c:ac5f:3df2? + ([2601:600:9000:d69e:61d3:178c:ac5f:3df2]) + by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id + l7sm11942077pgn.10.2017.05.12.23.43.48 + (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); + Fri, 12 May 2017 23:43:48 -0700 (PDT) +To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> +References: <201705121922.57445.luke@dashjr.org> + <201705130049.33798.luke@dashjr.org> + <c1a9b1d9-2810-0343-980d-45000c8600a8@voskuil.org> + <201705130545.25398.luke@dashjr.org> +From: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org> +X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 +Message-ID: <b34279c2-7ee0-6959-0ef6-30c12b620ff3@voskuil.org> +Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 23:43:59 -0700 +User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 + Thunderbird/45.5.1 +MIME-Version: 1.0 +In-Reply-To: <201705130545.25398.luke@dashjr.org> +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 +Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, + DKIM_VALID,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 +X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on + smtp1.linux-foundation.org +X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 13 May 2017 12:27:54 +0000 +Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP: Block signal enforcement via tx fees +X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 +Precedence: list +List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe> +List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/> +List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help> +List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe> +X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 13 May 2017 06:43:51 -0000 + +-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- +Hash: SHA256 + +On 05/12/2017 10:45 PM, Luke Dashjr wrote: +> On Saturday 13 May 2017 3:26:08 AM Eric Voskuil wrote: +>> If people want to influence the decisions of miners, all they +>> need to do is mine. +> +> Most people cannot mine except at a huge expense (profit is limited +> to few people via monopoly and electric costs). But more +> importantly, the profits from every miner you buy will go to pay +> for Bitmain growing their arsenal more than enough to offset your +> influence. + +You seem to be suggesting that in order to decentralize mining nobody +should mine. I'm having a hard time making sense out of that. + +> Mining is simply broken at this point. + +So maybe you are just saying that nobody should mine because it's a +zero sum game that one miner will always win and therefore we should +not push up the hash rate by trying to compete because the same miner +just makes more money on the hardware. Apparently it is economically +impossible for anyone else to compete in hardware as well. + +I agree that there is a serious problem of mining centralization (and +economic/validation centralization). If these problems are not solved +Bitcoin will fail. It will rise again, with people a little wiser, but +the disruption will be unfortunate for many. + +I don't want to see that, so I tend to not advocate for solutions that +run counter to the security model. Many people must mine, there is no +way around it. And if people want a say with respect to mining, they +should mine. As a developer I would rather work toward fixing that +problem than putting a band-aid over it that basically tells people +that the way they get their say is by donating to the big mining +personality of their choice. + +>> There is nothing inherently wrong with paying people to run nodes +>> or signal "readiness", but there is no reason whatsoever to +>> consider these ideas beneficial from a personal/economic or +>> security/decentralization standpoint. +> +> Running a node and mining are two very different things. + +No, really? + +If it wasn't clear, I was relating two sets of proposals. One aims to +find ways to fund node operation and the other aims to fund miner +signaling. The former fails to understand the economics and security +model of full node operation and the latter fails to understand that +distributed mining is as essential to Bitcoin survival as distributed +validation. + +>> The argument fails to recognize that mining for one's self may +>> (or may not) result in a net loss, but donating to a miner in the +>> hope of some action is comparatively a total loss. One is an +>> expense in exchange for the intended social outcome, and the +>> other is payment for representative government. +>> +>> And in this form of representative government that you propose, +>> if we assume that miners are somehow bound to honor the payments +>> (votes), ... +> +> First of all, this isn't donating to miners, but forbidding them +> from mining your transaction (and thereby collecting your +> transaction fee) unless they signal for the softfork. + +I assumed that people understand how markets work. Miners compete for +fees. By eliminating a subset of potential sellers (currently by ~70%) +the buyer raises his own price. Presumably the price is raised even +further by increasing the size of the transaction. This is either a +donation to the cause or a purchase of the signal, depending on how +you want to describe it (all donations are purchases of a sort). + +So there is a cost increase that could alternatively be incurred by +mining (i.e. assuming a lossy operation). If one is going to spend +money on influencing mining one might as well not do it in a way that +contributes to centralization while training people to rely on it. + +> Secondly, your argument here assumes miners are a government or +> control Bitcoin in some way. This is not correct. + +Miners absolutely "control Bitcoin in some way" - that is their +purpose. They control the ordering of transactions, and with +sufficient hash power can double-spend and therefore make the network +unusable. Why would you bother to make me type this? + +> So miners are in fact already bound to honour the wishes of the +> greater economy, and their refusal to do so is an attack on the +> network. + +Absolute nonsense, a miner incurs no obligation to the "greater +economy". He is offering a service in voluntary trade. He is likely to +do what it takes to spend his coinbase, assuming he wants to. This +gives the economy strong economic control over his behavior. But +nothing whatsoever obligates him to signal soft forks (or not optimize +his operations). + +Double spending is an attack, on the person who has been robbed. The +state enforcing a patent is an attack, on the person against whom it +is enforced. These are called attacks **because they are actually +theft**. You are conflating normal operation (despite disagreement +with some unmeasurable "wishes") with robbery. + +e +-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- +Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) + +iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJZFqstAAoJEDzYwH8LXOFOsvsH/2aWlsfi5hB1IrnX1UBsMJl8 ++R6BZE+d5C5uNkk6/yENHqwwgTv8yhOKav2Y7xYx/DedhVftX90h9CtdeKGgCS2H +cYNtoNauAvF2nlEMGGGcinLkYbS0dyQm07zwOI8gwuzbkslFGxLFClngFlFgMF4S +4/YCWvtRJ0O5dkrAZuKwG/7JQ1JNopbDTxssirA/OzwTGjq7BUv7INyR8nBbOp6I +xcrjq2bXja6Kxo08pr3+UrWc+0LO8fvX9z3rkm6USyin7TueS85gEUsk30h1Xng3 +Al1QccJ9KKJ+iQKdGozeHD2OlTFC1zW2kZaWbhgxOewDlmf7cNwZXEUwfr4C4Hs= +=j5eo +-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- + |