summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorAndrew Cann <shum@canndrew.org>2020-03-25 11:23:02 -0400
committerbitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org>2020-03-25 15:24:16 +0000
commitdd7d3fc6fffce4baa23ea13126d7900a64dec2ef (patch)
tree785fc6716dfc3e99ef3a879a766fd8b0330de487
parenta6aaf536e723ad83f8f1a906378ea48dd7372676 (diff)
downloadpi-bitcoindev-dd7d3fc6fffce4baa23ea13126d7900a64dec2ef.tar.gz
pi-bitcoindev-dd7d3fc6fffce4baa23ea13126d7900a64dec2ef.zip
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block solving slowdown question/poll
-rw-r--r--5a/962b62599e852e2a75ad1d6f6107c5c42e8f0c137
1 files changed, 137 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/5a/962b62599e852e2a75ad1d6f6107c5c42e8f0c b/5a/962b62599e852e2a75ad1d6f6107c5c42e8f0c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..23581c5a0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/5a/962b62599e852e2a75ad1d6f6107c5c42e8f0c
@@ -0,0 +1,137 @@
+Return-Path: <shum@canndrew.org>
+Received: from silver.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136])
+ by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B308C0177
+ for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
+ Wed, 25 Mar 2020 15:24:16 +0000 (UTC)
+Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
+ by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E96A204FC
+ for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
+ Wed, 25 Mar 2020 15:24:16 +0000 (UTC)
+X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
+Received: from silver.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
+ by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
+ with ESMTP id yuxBkmb19j4n
+ for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
+ Wed, 25 Mar 2020 15:24:13 +0000 (UTC)
+X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
+Received: from canndrew.org (canndrew.org [199.167.29.165])
+ by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 95A7825B04
+ for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
+ Wed, 25 Mar 2020 15:23:12 +0000 (UTC)
+Received: from shum by canndrew.org with local (Exim 4.84_2)
+ (envelope-from <shum@canndrew.org>)
+ id 1jH7ry-0000vG-4e; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 11:23:02 -0400
+Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 11:23:02 -0400
+From: Andrew Cann <shum@canndrew.org>
+To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
+Message-ID: <20200325152302.GA3355@canndrew.org>
+References: <PS2P216MB0179EC99BDE0E3388F2627F89DF30@PS2P216MB0179.KORP216.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
+ <F713CAAC-1997-4645-A166-57358E520594@voskuil.org>
+ <CAGLBAhdTMbZPwqV9YLMyHdNzLbN2DLjiOe6cBUbkwR_x4cGRmQ@mail.gmail.com>
+ <20200323125922.GA29881@canndrew.org>
+ <CAGLBAhcUgTEWnraFem0YwODc61B4nwbzddHJtE0D7ZCjUNWfYg@mail.gmail.com>
+ <C_qo1AhQuklVr4owEXVgLXsvJomb9Usd1NP2zf_D_23r6Cmz9-iB7ygSfNihJp3FIfAf4c1P41fT3qQP7SFiKdCfXxpogcstHsOnpgLgbok=@protonmail.com>
+MIME-Version: 1.0
+Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
+ protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="lrZ03NoBR/3+SXJZ"
+Content-Disposition: inline
+In-Reply-To: <C_qo1AhQuklVr4owEXVgLXsvJomb9Usd1NP2zf_D_23r6Cmz9-iB7ygSfNihJp3FIfAf4c1P41fT3qQP7SFiKdCfXxpogcstHsOnpgLgbok=@protonmail.com>
+User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
+X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 04:32:22 +0000
+Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
+Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block solving slowdown question/poll
+X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
+X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
+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: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 15:24:16 -0000
+
+
+--lrZ03NoBR/3+SXJZ
+Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
+Content-Disposition: inline
+Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
+
+Hi, thanks for the replies.
+
+> Anyway, yes, your idea is fundamentally broken because a zero block reward
+> happens because creating even one more satoshi will push the amount of
+> bitcoin over 21,000,0000, breaking the meaning of "bitcoin," or, if you
+> like, creating a fundamental contradiction in our use of the term.=20
+
+I wouldn't really consider that fundamentally broken. It changes the meanin=
+g of
+"bitcoin", but so does every upgrade to the protocol. The worst problem I c=
+an
+see with this is that there's probably a lot of software out there which
+assumes a cap of 21M. But we'd have years to find and fix those bugs.
+
+> They already do so, via an implicit "field", known as the transaction fee.
+> This makes the vote for how much security is needed to be costly to the
+> voter, which is appropriate: you pay for your security.
+
+This isn't the same thing though, economically / game-theoretically speakin=
+g.
+Transaction fees are only paid when bitcoins get moved. There's no on-going
+cost for people holding bitcoins (assuming they're doing their day-to-day
+transactions almost entirely off-chain, which is something that's only goin=
+g to
+become more common). More to the point, the transaction fee is only set by =
+the
+current demand for block space. If transaction fees drop too low to maintai=
+n a
+secure hash rate then people *could* willingly pay more than they need to to
+get their transactions mined, but it's unlikely they will since it'd be che=
+aper
+to just pay the minimum and hope that everyone else covers the costs of kee=
+ping
+the network secure for them.
+
+With the voting idea everyone decides what everyone pays (via dilution) to =
+keep
+the network secure. Choosing to signal a high inflation rate doesn't mean y=
+ou
+pay more than everyone else, just that you might shift the median, so there=
+'s
+no tragedy-of-the-commons problem. Also, votes are weighted by the value of
+the utxo, so people both vote and pay in proportion to the amount of bitcoin
+they're holding.
+
+Does this make sense? Or is there some game-theoretic reason I'm not seeing=
+ for
+why transaction fees can never drop dangerously low in the first place?
+
+ - Andrew
+
+
+--lrZ03NoBR/3+SXJZ
+Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
+Content-Description: Digital signature
+
+-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
+Version: GnuPG v1
+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+=Q003
+-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
+
+--lrZ03NoBR/3+SXJZ--
+