MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20150612181153.GB19199@muck>
	<CAOG=w-up7-wp2NnK52jeCLvcSWvbC-iT-YRDoA=10QhU=K14-g@mail.gmail.com>
	<1466351.XXvDcu7nzO@crushinator>
In-Reply-To: <1466351.XXvDcu7nzO@crushinator>
From: Jannes Faber <j.faber@elevate.nl>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 18:56:57 +0000
Message-ID: <CABeL=0g5Lq0zpwW2sHTbO+TTj84aJaDH=1wzeQdFVyhHf-QiSg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name>,
	Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c36bc6c1635d051856ac71
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] User vote in blocksize through fees
Precedence: list

--001a11c36bc6c1635d051856ac71
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

I'm imagining in Peter's proposal it's not the transaction votes that are
counted but only the votes in the blocks? So miners get to vote but they
risk losing money by having to exclude counter voting transactions. But
garbage transactions are no problem at all.

Note that users that want to cast a vote "pay" for that by increased
confirmation time (on average, hopefully slightly depending on the trend).

On Fri, Jun 12, 2015, 20:27 Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name> wrote:

> On Friday, 12 June 2015, at 11:20 am, Mark Friedenbach wrote:
> > Peter it's not clear to me that your described protocol is free of miner
> > influence over the vote, by artificially generating transactions which
> they
> > claim in their own blocks
>
> Miners could fill their blocks with garbage transactions that agree with
> their vote, but this wouldn't bring them any real income, as they'd be
> paying their own money as fees to themselves. To get real income, miners
> would have to vote in accordance with real users.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>

--001a11c36bc6c1635d051856ac71
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<p dir=3D"ltr">I&#39;m imagining in Peter&#39;s proposal it&#39;s not the t=
ransaction votes that are counted but only the votes in the blocks? So mine=
rs get to vote but they risk losing money by having to exclude counter voti=
ng transactions. But garbage transactions are no problem at all.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Note that users that want to cast a vote &quot;pay&quot; for=
 that by increased confirmation time (on average, hopefully slightly depend=
ing on the trend).</p>

<br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr">On Fri, Jun 12, 2015, 20:27=
=C2=A0Matt Whitlock &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bip@mattwhitlock.name" target=3D"=
_blank">bip@mattwhitlock.name</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"=
gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-=
left:1ex">On Friday, 12 June 2015, at 11:20 am, Mark Friedenbach wrote:<br>
&gt; Peter it&#39;s not clear to me that your described protocol is free of=
 miner<br>
&gt; influence over the vote, by artificially generating transactions which=
 they<br>
&gt; claim in their own blocks<br>
<br>
Miners could fill their blocks with garbage transactions that agree with th=
eir vote, but this wouldn&#39;t bring them any real income, as they&#39;d b=
e paying their own money as fees to themselves. To get real income, miners =
would have to vote in accordance with real users.<br>
<br>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Bitcoin-development mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net" target=3D"_bla=
nk">Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development=
" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/=
listinfo/bitcoin-development</a><br>
</blockquote></div>

--001a11c36bc6c1635d051856ac71--