Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 17A3BFB3 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 2015 14:18:58 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f179.google.com (mail-wi0-f179.google.com [209.85.212.179]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A0B1E8 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 2015 14:18:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wibz8 with SMTP id z8so100744670wib.1 for ; Thu, 03 Sep 2015 07:18:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=uHPXlYSR5AHFbjNSt97OaGGQRjw3v0uJ63PWzFfwQ5Q=; b=urhJxoP9e7w2NgPpExwKXMo3kXFhOwHR+YH6NCc6RG9Wlh7iD8q1A2TfmGG0erzabq vZLek3fC5SI96se0fTpi0av+Cu9me0iU66rKsSgVjX0jJCshmRW3NsphbGNKxeVEBhbw xog5kIDFvNDxiAbI9A9CZMyFaQF4fwxKT52BoIHk0UDUINWFFk1Asm7reUVO8Dw8RP+Z kCrTQWymxNGO1j411Ohm/Kb+B9Z5bpJSbARnw661miavHSD9k3TZLaalVtTfv/ad266s C+LJTEnGeh9y0lxZe3qyNABXWfX5MYIpFtDE9lsKVuJoBEOhB0WDbRDi+Z/Ae6+kbzbd AlNg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.87.1 with SMTP id t1mr14621548wiz.33.1441289936087; Thu, 03 Sep 2015 07:18:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.28.15.11 with HTTP; Thu, 3 Sep 2015 07:18:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 10:18:56 -0400 Message-ID: From: Jeff Garzik To: jl2012@xbt.hk Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d044481afa8b019051ed876c2 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,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 development mailing list Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] block size - pay with difficulty 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: Thu, 03 Sep 2015 14:18:58 -0000 --f46d044481afa8b019051ed876c2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks for the link. I readily admit only having given pay-to-future-miner a little bit of thought. Not convinced it sets a minimal tx fee in all cases. On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 12:55 AM, wrote: > Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev =E6=96=BC 2015-09-03 00:05 =E5=AF=AB=E5=88=B0= : > >> Schemes proposing to pay with difficulty / hashpower to change block >> size should be avoided. The miners incentive has always been fairly >> straightforward - it is rational to deploy new hashpower as soon as >> you can get it online. Introducing the concepts of (a) requiring >> out-of-band collusion to change block size and/or (b) requiring miners >> to have idle hashpower on hand to change block size are both >> unrealistic and potentially corrosive. That potentially makes the >> block size - and therefore fee market - too close, too sensitive to >> the wild vagaries of the mining chip market. >> >> Pay-to-future-miner has neutral, forward looking incentives worth >> researching. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> > > Ref: > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/01072= 3.html > > I explained here why pay with difficulty is bad for everyone: miners and > users, and described the use of OP_CLTV for pay-to-future-miner > > However, a general problem of pay-to-increase-block-size scheme is it > indirectly sets a minimal tx fee, which could be difficult and arbitrary, > and is against competition > > > --f46d044481afa8b019051ed876c2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks for the link.=C2=A0 I readily admit only having giv= en pay-to-future-miner a little bit of thought.=C2=A0 Not convinced it sets= a minimal tx fee in all cases.


On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 12:55 AM, <jl2012@x= bt.hk> wrote:
Jeff Garzik v= ia bitcoin-dev =E6=96=BC 2015-09-03 00:05 =E5=AF=AB=E5=88=B0:
Schemes proposing to pay with difficulty / hashpower to change block
size should be avoided.=C2=A0 The miners incentive has always been fairly straightforward - it is rational to deploy new hashpower as soon as
you can get it online.=C2=A0 Introducing the concepts of (a) requiring
out-of-band collusion to change block size and/or (b) requiring miners
to have idle hashpower on hand to change block size are both
unrealistic and potentially corrosive.=C2=A0 That potentially makes the
block size - and therefore fee market - too close, too sensitive to
the wild vagaries of the mining chip market.

Pay-to-future-miner has neutral, forward looking incentives worth
researching.


_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Ref: https://lists.li= nuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010723.html

I explained here why pay with difficulty is bad for everyone: miners and us= ers, and described the use of OP_CLTV for pay-to-future-miner

However, a general problem of pay-to-increase-block-size scheme is it indir= ectly sets a minimal tx fee, which could be difficult and arbitrary, and is= against competition



--f46d044481afa8b019051ed876c2--