MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2015 00:55:35 -0400
From: jl2012@xbt.hk
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADm_Wcb+5Xo3HS-FNUYtCapVpYfVvUS_fxpU0Q=TZHJW1=iAFQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADm_Wcb+5Xo3HS-FNUYtCapVpYfVvUS_fxpU0Q=TZHJW1=iAFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <d15669b6ce3dbc89dff6c907a5749034@xbt.hk>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.0.5
Cc: Bitcoin development mailing list <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] block size - pay with difficulty
Precedence: list

Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev 於 2015-09-03 00:05 寫到:
> 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/010723.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