1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
|
Return-Path: <wordsgalore@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2EF8399F
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 12 Oct 2017 15:42:05 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wm0-f68.google.com (mail-wm0-f68.google.com [74.125.82.68])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C102442
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 12 Oct 2017 15:42:04 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-wm0-f68.google.com with SMTP id b189so14240641wmd.4
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 12 Oct 2017 08:42:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
bh=LVksH/ssloDUycUlYS61YGLMi8wVccBaybkl68gBctA=;
b=oBT5hh/97iLI9blAYgV7QML/mVgmdhi2/2w6V6YhNWiYIQ5eE3Dk/L3t29EB+dJgOJ
sACOpJq4WZXV/+SPdPh8HIBpC0ebKQfZsQg1lbLUXR10TQY4afenkxAi8nrRjevgdg4a
ywNVofa3/ZUzDRvU9q+dWz66W/Egs9cQo1gkZmvu9SNT/Ns1UET/3NAmExID59UijcjW
742zUVnw1gO9eGQ5rdM68go9n9vN819FwngHzNUqTnQlqjabP2uWHc3D23B+8Sq73TuE
3bSwaZqom0gUPfypPWIxSptLsIZc/mkhLN1TACoubetYSj3WClQFyKQAwRVgDfKRlx4K
Nt7Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
bh=LVksH/ssloDUycUlYS61YGLMi8wVccBaybkl68gBctA=;
b=rqWYh0U7ahCh6pCcGbenuaMScJoy+R3LOYKGJ8+zx2ut2tOxhWobp/gzePKWT9peuY
V7OAxBrGinjhg+z5N2u+ZKCYhq5UiqExvGlC80HqbYmsfJynfjm14eoMuj+88viwEeYQ
MQ3pAQtgMhGW2RM60rjZCGdU7Dd0/6G+nJoE22TUQ9VAwBlgSPJrSIX6NkLpc3o0+w1Z
ss4+XM3LYGei+Bvn8y0wDHgbJmyIjyImUe+R/JgoI/uRA6Ws2gl9afxCR9ejCp5JICl/
W2y7RYZQCsdstKSogTOwVVSjQ2MzurQPw2TkAfhRsJWL601vXqHqAXwpwEqg5NnUn6uK
5lIg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaVjCFcUkeT7HOKZpe0dSiZk1asWhl882ttsWGXRoTyn20sqcpbu
NWiYZ/VOl5m/MTsgYgkyptrNyOT+4EeRxXiJaWeMaQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QABYN0fQIVSVFTk/Gl7jao505GU+WbI+KZZnmJuo3xB8sLLdDrv7S3gP4GGuKa1dnXSbECEk7e2niaX+jStV7U=
X-Received: by 10.80.240.2 with SMTP id r2mr3271641edl.57.1507822922432; Thu,
12 Oct 2017 08:42:02 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.80.173.10 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Oct 2017 08:42:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Scott Roberts <wordsgalore@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 11:42:02 -0400
Message-ID: <CADtTMvnr8SgSxV1Qcorv28TY=fR1yJdtAEtjkYvPJQ7pm8dBMQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.4 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,
DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM
autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 15:47:04 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] New difficulty algorithm part 2
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 15:42:05 -0000
ZmnSCPxj wrote:
> Thus even if the unwanted chain provides 2 tokens as fee per block,
> whereas the wanted chain provides 1 token as fee per block, if the
> unwanted chain tokens are valued at 1/4 the wanted chain tokens, miners
> will still prefer the wanted chain regardless.
This is a good point I was not thinking about, but your math assumes
1/2 price for a coin that can do 2x more transactions. Holders like
Roger Ver have an interest in low price and more transactions. A coin
with 2x more transactions, 22% lower price, and 22% lower fees per
coin transferred will attract more merchants, customers, and miners
(they get 50% more total fees) and this will in turn attract more
hodlers and devs. This assumes it outweighs hodler security concerns.
Merchants and customers, to the extent they are not long term hodlers,
are not interested in price as much as stability, so they are somewhat
at odds with hodlers.
Bitcoin consensus truth is based on "might is right". Buyers and
sellers of goods and services ("users") can shift some might to miners
via fees, to the chagrin of hodlers who have more interest in security
and price increases. Some hodlers think meeting user needs is the
source of long term value. Others think mining infrastructure is. You
seem to require hodlers to correctly identify and rely solely on good
developers. Whatever combination of these is the case, bad money can
still drive out good, especially if the market determination is not
efficient.
A faster measurement of hashrate for difficulty enables the economic
determination to be more efficient and correct. It prevents the
biggest coin from bullying forks that have better ideas. Conversely,
it prevents miners from switching to an inferior coin simply because
it provides them with more "protection money" from fees that enables
them to bully Bitcoin Core out of existence, even in the presence of a
slightly larger hodler support.
Devs are a governing authority under the influence of users, hodlers,
and miners. Miners are like banks lobbying government for higher total
fees. Hodlers are the new 1%, holding 90% of the coin, lobbying both
devs and users for security, but equally interested in price
increases. Users are "the people" that devs need to protect against
both hodlers and miners. They do not care about price as long as it is
stable. They do not want to become the 99% owning 10% of the coin or
have to pay unecessary fees merely for their coin to be the biggest
bully on the block. A faster responding difficulty will take a lot of
hot air out of the bully. It prevents miners from being able to
dictate that only coins with high fees are allowed. They are less
able to destroy small coins that have a fast defense.
The 1% and banks would starve the people that feed them to death if
they were allowed complete control of the government. Are hodlers and
miners any wiser? Devs need to strive for an expansion of the coin
quantity to keep value constant which is the foundation of the 5
characteristics of an ideal currency. Therefore devs should seek
peaceful and sustainable forks of bitcoin. This will enable constant
value, security, and low transaction fees per coin transfer. Alts
aside, the current situation of discouraging forks forbids constant
value via limited quantity. It also forces a choice between high
security and low fees. Forks with a faster difficulty will be more
capable of retaining value.
Users, devs, hodlers, and miners are naturally aligned and at odds in
different ways. A flow chart of the checks and balances should enable
better development towards a self-controlling feedback system, but the
goals need to be known before it could be designed and implemented.
Hodlers say price increases is the goal. Users say efficient transfer
of value. Miners say fees (at least that's the end game after mining).
I'm with users despite trying to be the 1% (which reminds me of a book
about how people often vote based on feeling good about their morality
and concern for society as a whole, despite it being contrary to their
personal best interests if that vote wins.)
|
