Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org
	designates 62.13.149.81 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=62.13.149.81; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org;
	helo=outmail149081.authsmtp.net; 
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 19:47:34 +0100
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Benjamin <benjamin.l.cordes@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20150612184734.GH19199@muck>
References: <20150612181153.GB19199@muck> <23144512.HX7dfatEFr@crushinator>
	<20150612183421.GE19199@muck> <3287607.HcH18TyfSu@crushinator>
	<CAOoPuRaRMbY++Ys-D-k+Kb_oGLj9H8hKOty94Z2scU5u=jZsoQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="HkMjoL2LAeBLhbFV"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAOoPuRaRMbY++Ys-D-k+Kb_oGLj9H8hKOty94Z2scU5u=jZsoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] User vote in blocksize through fees
Precedence: list


--HkMjoL2LAeBLhbFV
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 08:39:21PM +0200, Benjamin wrote:
> This is a misguided idea, to say the least. If such a mechanism of of
> user input would be possible, one would use it for transaction
> verification in the first place. In proof-of-stake outcomes are
> determined by vote by stake (that vote has very different
> characteristics than vote by compute power). There is no such thing as
> making it possible to determine what "users want". That's what the
> proof-of-work mechanism does in the first place, only that it is now
> unfortunately skewed/corrupted/(whatever you want to call it). Before
> centralization the concept of "miners" didn't exist in Bitcoin and
> miners were roughly identical to users. Peer-to-Peer implies only one
> class of users.
>=20
> A big problem with such a vote (in PoW and PoS): miners get paid for
> their work and have incentives to raise fees. Those who pay fees would
> have no say in whether those fees are fair or not. Transaction
> verification has to be roughly profitable, but there is no fixed
> formula for determining profitability.

Read John Dillon's proposal then, which via proof-of-stake explicitly
approportions control of increases via % of Bitcoin owned.


Anyway, representing everyone is never going to be easy, but at least
this nVersion thing is very easy to implement.

--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
0000000000000000127ab1d576dc851f374424f1269c4700ccaba2c42d97e778

--HkMjoL2LAeBLhbFV
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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==
=8qJS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--HkMjoL2LAeBLhbFV--