Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD9CCEAE for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2015 23:38:22 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-io0-f175.google.com (mail-io0-f175.google.com [209.85.223.175]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF55A239 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2015 23:38:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iofe124 with SMTP id e124so44029842iof.1 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2015 16:38:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=uKm7oZp00BEXDUVz9kvRliHVC0xuaTIzIVDhknPGeHY=; b=bRr4JNDoWPT5lE9L/5mAKgJZJgYs1OrfOjGJ3VjMRcEw/nGsgQTTYP4UKxWbyJH2jI jBjnE9vt6Up3N52NBAwAOfUrggij9e8uFKGCL4inVBYHoD1VNSDXJ1D8S7G7ZeU9bbaJ ISjEX4IVwX9DiVML6NirMzUSU/lXBqL2WuErSvNI9RsfEmW3QrkHiK263rGBDeraI2VD s7Uu6bh3zzQOR6CC3fAyfzcpQ2vN+uTESsZar4qelrp1ec8C2lcPcVJwLsAy83Tmq1Uh jUBXGDnWbkEXMXMw+DZWQYy/D6MFCm+eDCFk5JGKLBkFsdlTf9X4XV9AhpSzkgbjLkK6 Pqsg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkbmMS/UHGu0wl8o3C9kRGku8mmmvYksMP/bKILxYN5QJiM6eCHnGrKDAhaLgRm7aVKcfRW MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.25.134 with SMTP id 128mr8321475ioz.159.1440805101409; Fri, 28 Aug 2015 16:38:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.107.135.104 with HTTP; Fri, 28 Aug 2015 16:38:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [172.56.17.254] Received: by 10.107.135.104 with HTTP; Fri, 28 Aug 2015 16:38:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <2081355.cHxjDEpgpW@crushinator> Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 16:38:21 -0700 Message-ID: From: Mark Friedenbach To: Chris Pacia Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113fde8842befe051e679438 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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 Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Consensus based block size retargeting algorithm (draft) 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: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 23:38:22 -0000 --001a113fde8842befe051e679438 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It is in their individual interests when the larger block that is allowed for them grants them more fees. On Aug 28, 2015 4:35 PM, "Chris Pacia via bitcoin-dev" < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > When discussing this with Matt Whitlock earlier we basically concluded th= e > block size will never increase under this proposal do to a collective > action problem. If a miner votes for an increase and nobody else does, th= e > blocksize will not increase yet he will still have to pay the difficulty > penalty. > > It may be in everyone's collective interest to raise the block size but > not their individual interest. > On Aug 28, 2015 6:24 PM, "Gavin via bitcoin-dev" < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> With this proposal, how much would it cost a miner to include an 'extra' >> 500-byte transaction if the average block size is 900K and it costs the >> miner 20BTC in electricity/capital/etc to mine a block? >> >> If my understanding of the proposal is correct, it is: >> >> 500/900000 * 20 =3D 0.11111 BTC >> >> ... Or $2.50 at today's exchange rate. >> >> That seems excessive. >> >> -- >> Gavin Andresen >> >> >> > On Aug 28, 2015, at 5:15 PM, Matt Whitlock via bitcoin-dev < >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> > >> > This is the best proposal I've seen yet. Allow me to summarize: >> > >> > =E2=80=A2 It addresses the problem, in Jeff Garzik's BIP 100, of miner= s selling >> their block-size votes. >> > =E2=80=A2 It addresses the problem, in Gavin Andresen's BIP 101, of bl= indly >> trying to predict future market needs versus future technological >> capacities. >> > =E2=80=A2 It avoids a large step discontinuity in the block-size limit= by >> starting with a 1-MB limit. >> > =E2=80=A2 It throttles changes to =C2=B110% every 2016 blocks. >> > =E2=80=A2 It imposes a tangible cost (higher difficulty) on miners who= vote to >> raise the block-size limit. >> > =E2=80=A2 It avoids incentivizing miners to vote to lower the block-si= ze limit. >> > >> > However, this proposal currently fails to answer a very important >> question: >> > >> > =E2=80=A2 What is the mechanism for activation of the new consensus ru= le? It is >> when a certain percentage of the blocks mined in a 2016-block retargetin= g >> period contain valid block-size votes? >> > >> > >> > https://github.com/btcdrak/bips/blob/bip-cbbsra/bip-cbbrsa.mediawiki >> > >> > >> >> On Friday, 28 August 2015, at 9:28 pm, Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev wrote= : >> >> Pull request: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/187 >> > _______________________________________________ >> > bitcoin-dev mailing list >> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > --001a113fde8842befe051e679438 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

It is in their individual interests when the larger block th= at is allowed for them grants them more fees.

On Aug 28, 2015 4:35 PM, "Chris Pacia via b= itcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

When discussing this wit= h Matt Whitlock earlier we basically concluded the block size will never in= crease under this proposal do to a collective action problem. If a miner vo= tes for an increase and nobody else does, the blocksize will not increase y= et he will still have to pay the difficulty penalty.

It may be in everyone's collective interest to raise the= block size but not their individual interest.

On Aug 28, 2015 6:24 PM, "Gavin via bitcoin= -dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
With this proposal, how muc= h would it cost a miner to include an 'extra' 500-byte transaction = if the average block size is 900K and it costs the miner 20BTC in electrici= ty/capital/etc to mine a block?

If my understanding of the proposal is correct, it is:

500/900000 * 20 =3D 0.11111 BTC

... Or $2.50 at today's exchange rate.

That seems excessive.

--
Gavin Andresen


> On Aug 28, 2015, at 5:15 PM, Matt Whitlock via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin= -dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> This is the best proposal I've seen yet. Allow me to summarize: >
> =E2=80=A2 It addresses the problem, in Jeff Garzik's BIP 100, of m= iners selling their block-size votes.
> =E2=80=A2 It addresses the problem, in Gavin Andresen's BIP 101, o= f blindly trying to predict future market needs versus future technological= capacities.
> =E2=80=A2 It avoids a large step discontinuity in the block-size limit= by starting with a 1-MB limit.
> =E2=80=A2 It throttles changes to =C2=B110% every 2016 blocks.
> =E2=80=A2 It imposes a tangible cost (higher difficulty) on miners who= vote to raise the block-size limit.
> =E2=80=A2 It avoids incentivizing miners to vote to lower the block-si= ze limit.
>
> However, this proposal currently fails to answer a very important ques= tion:
>
> =E2=80=A2 What is the mechanism for activation of the new consensus ru= le? It is when a certain percentage of the blocks mined in a 2016-block ret= argeting period contain valid block-size votes?
>
>
> https://github.com/btcdrak/= bips/blob/bip-cbbsra/bip-cbbrsa.mediawiki
>
>
>> On Friday, 28 August 2015, at 9:28 pm, Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev wr= ote:
>> Pull request: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/= 187
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org= /mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

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

--001a113fde8842befe051e679438--