Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7046AEB0 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2015 00:00:14 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-la0-f42.google.com (mail-la0-f42.google.com [209.85.215.42]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB4C7126 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2015 00:00:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: by laba3 with SMTP id a3so41513695lab.1 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2015 17:00:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=78ehuL8cNVZ8txYfkIb1at8N98wt0+1ydooROvyrpos=; b=imP0K6JkJPHsQyfIugVJLceJxQ+j0FQpYNTlETXttkbKbYsp7sgZsnKWnY663gm/DX C7yELIecaRtAVvxjV6ZBv0tnCZN0lqEvAzZipcF3I4tQRDHsRv3ZmdiIi8dkPdBrYDnS HmAlaVoECUC7BeickvX7zgRGku6pEBcX0Q0DOfMqoF0fi6xB04xy8eTb4rb59cjnB38c GQv5DXw3kPtwg4XFAYe6jCNyLm7S3SmQyDHFqa1GjBcdWy2WxltLFNisqbaCUcA+uVWM /kGcXaYEnPHHZSjRvLa2SweUXuARD2SSsATEz6WJwAsQmRPZIvzG9s3AVrKdF5zzMsOQ C09w== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkHnAe9uu5Ap/qRjMcyXsZKhHzb+2kOsWOHCGrxDpXOoqklkeS4t+aSUoyRsoX5h7fI/gH5 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.7.237 with SMTP id m13mr5846959laa.39.1440806412066; Fri, 28 Aug 2015 17:00:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.15.22 with HTTP; Fri, 28 Aug 2015 17:00:11 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <2081355.cHxjDEpgpW@crushinator> Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2015 02:00:11 +0200 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= To: Mark Friedenbach , Jeff Garzik Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Consensus based block size retargeting algorithm (draft) X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2015 00:00:14 -0000 On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 1:38 AM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev wrote: > It is in their individual interests when the larger block that is allowed > for them grants them more fees. I realize now that this is not what Greg Maxwell proposed (aka flexcap): this is just miner's voting on block size but paying with higher difficulty when they vote for bigger blocks. As I said several times in other places, miners should not decide on the consensus rule to limit mining centralization. People keep talking about miners voting on the block size or "softforking the size down if we went too far". But what if the hashing majority is perfectly fine with the mining centralization at that point in time? Then a softfork won't be useful and we're talking about an "anti-miner fork" (see https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/181/files#diff-e331b8631759a4ed6a4cfb4d10f473caR158 and https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/181/files#diff-e331b8631759a4ed6a4cfb4d10f473caR175 ). I believe miner's voting on the rule to limit mining centralization is a terrible idea. It sounds as bad as letting pharma companies write the regulations on new drugs safety, letting big food chains deciding on minimum food controls or car manufacturers deciding on indirect taxes for fuel. That's why I dislike both this proposal and BIP100.