diff options
author | Andrew Cann <shum@canndrew.org> | 2020-03-25 11:23:02 -0400 |
---|---|---|
committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2020-03-25 15:24:16 +0000 |
commit | dd7d3fc6fffce4baa23ea13126d7900a64dec2ef (patch) | |
tree | 785fc6716dfc3e99ef3a879a766fd8b0330de487 | |
parent | a6aaf536e723ad83f8f1a906378ea48dd7372676 (diff) | |
download | pi-bitcoindev-dd7d3fc6fffce4baa23ea13126d7900a64dec2ef.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-dd7d3fc6fffce4baa23ea13126d7900a64dec2ef.zip |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block solving slowdown question/poll
-rw-r--r-- | 5a/962b62599e852e2a75ad1d6f6107c5c42e8f0c | 137 |
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 + +iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJee3dVAAoJEJQq94U5BTTOII4QALov5cydHP1EA307fCQqbRwh +mpsFDLWXAoh2HdMnW55/eJ75gzZBV1hvWhOeJGwNEatzfnfusKMwpbFTxH+H7CDo +1fjuRKLE0he9taQoMm5Wbjk/zeiDhDuW51Uah+b19aOhYt8GsTH5z2oX7lAyt0jZ +itUU1IS0prWYq+54DgyiLe5e0v3PlTzKfe2/+gl5sayrQ+42WMy5ohY6BiQC8/VB +xO1r34HkcEUNbqkg1wL0PDUPShpZ2Fq6f2UbpVecXS1GvV6dmBE2u+TQPM5qOMBr +IhqxMZtsxjlmuv8Ty2isNacfxggM1rvKo4HM1JKqvyhvBuaCD/oNImO788YTS0M+ +GKS4YlUbYrT8OcZ1riBiv3D97M0kr6ClXokhGO0fXHRmo8Hu6mrnqbrnzQ6FiSfx +ancongHNBbgm+xWhbe10k1liz1ztUTXAkFaBnK6oT2LfgU48MHzNgxsMBgeSU/5+ +vmA44M37QC+V2wCYS/fLqG4rT+A77dTnxwPWBo4Zt+akjXvEcNXjzQ/PH+mAnH3d +BtD4Qz820o6QF4xHXLDWSniMFZ3a9fW/MOd0mhj/rEHIF6FcYH6NLkhcTUi+jMyy +CkNoAse3PuvsQciDSCMY3ddyQJbjlzoSBity5sQEbdH1onHm5lLlJpij3zcqoElT +gkWclt8G7ToH7fUZYLAn +=Q003 +-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- + +--lrZ03NoBR/3+SXJZ-- + |