Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.192.173 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.192.173; envelope-from=danny.thorpe@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-pd0-f173.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20150612181153.GB19199@muck>
References: <20150612181153.GB19199@muck>
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 15:20:28 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJN5wHVj=KfQ3_KYOKee9uq4LNPwQ7x5nGuKDHEMUqGF4LSDLg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Danny Thorpe <danny.thorpe@gmail.com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b6d8528cf9ce605186da1b1
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] User vote in blocksize through fees
Precedence: list

--047d7b6d8528cf9ce605186da1b1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Please forgive my ignorance, but why should Bitcoin users have a say in
block size limits?  It's the miners and Bitcoin node operators that bear
the burden of managing large blocks, no?

Users voting on network parameters sounds like neighbors voting on how deep
my swimming pool should be.

Thanks,
-Danny

On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:

> Jeff Garzik recently proposed that the upper blocksize limit be removed
> entirely, with a "soft" limit being enforced via miner vote, recorded by
> hashing power.
>
> This mechanism within the protocol for users to have any influence over
> the miner vote. We can add that back by providing a way for transactions
> themselves to set a flag determining whether or not they can be included
> in a block casting a specific vote.
>
> We can simplify Garzik's vote to say that one of the nVersion bits
> either votes for the blocksize to be increased, or decreased, by some
> fixed ratio (e.g 2x or 1/2x) the next interval. Then we can use a
> nVersion bit in transactions themselves, also voting for an increase or
> decrease. Transactions may only be included in blocks with an
> indentical vote, thus providing miners with a monetary incentive via
> fees to vote according to user wishes.
>
> Of course, to cast a "don't care" vote we can either define an
> additional bit, or sign the transaction with both versions. Equally we
> can even have different versions with different fees, broadcast via a
> mechanism such as replace-by-fee.
>
>
> See also John Dillon's proposal for proof-of-stake blocksize voting:
>
>
> https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg02323.html
>
> --
> 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
> 0000000000000000127ab1d576dc851f374424f1269c4700ccaba2c42d97e778
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>

--047d7b6d8528cf9ce605186da1b1
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Please forgive my ignorance, but why should Bitcoin users =
have a say in block size limits?=C2=A0 It&#39;s the miners and Bitcoin node=
 operators that bear the burden of managing large blocks, no? =C2=A0<div><b=
r></div><div>Users voting on network parameters sounds like neighbors votin=
g on how deep my swimming pool should be.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,<=
/div><div>-Danny</div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gm=
ail_quote">On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Peter Todd <span dir=3D"ltr">&=
lt;<a href=3D"mailto:pete@petertodd.org" target=3D"_blank">pete@petertodd.o=
rg</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"marg=
in:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Jeff Garzik rece=
ntly proposed that the upper blocksize limit be removed<br>
entirely, with a &quot;soft&quot; limit being enforced via miner vote, reco=
rded by<br>
hashing power.<br>
<br>
This mechanism within the protocol for users to have any influence over<br>
the miner vote. We can add that back by providing a way for transactions<br=
>
themselves to set a flag determining whether or not they can be included<br=
>
in a block casting a specific vote.<br>
<br>
We can simplify Garzik&#39;s vote to say that one of the nVersion bits<br>
either votes for the blocksize to be increased, or decreased, by some<br>
fixed ratio (e.g 2x or 1/2x) the next interval. Then we can use a<br>
nVersion bit in transactions themselves, also voting for an increase or<br>
decrease. Transactions may only be included in blocks with an<br>
indentical vote, thus providing miners with a monetary incentive via<br>
fees to vote according to user wishes.<br>
<br>
Of course, to cast a &quot;don&#39;t care&quot; vote we can either define a=
n<br>
additional bit, or sign the transaction with both versions. Equally we<br>
can even have different versions with different fees, broadcast via a<br>
mechanism such as replace-by-fee.<br>
<br>
<br>
See also John Dillon&#39;s proposal for proof-of-stake blocksize voting:<br=
>
<br>
<a href=3D"https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourcefor=
ge.net/msg02323.html" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://www.mail=
-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg02323.html</a><br=
>
<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br>
--<br>
&#39;peter&#39;[:-1]@<a href=3D"http://petertodd.org" rel=3D"noreferrer" ta=
rget=3D"_blank">petertodd.org</a><br>
0000000000000000127ab1d576dc851f374424f1269c4700ccaba2c42d97e778<br>
</font></span><br>---------------------------------------------------------=
---------------------<br>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Bitcoin-development mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net">Bitcoin-develo=
pment@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>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>

--047d7b6d8528cf9ce605186da1b1--