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
|
Return-Path: <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7ACDDDB
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 28 Aug 2015 22:24:04 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-qg0-f43.google.com (mail-qg0-f43.google.com
[209.85.192.43])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 29AAA14C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 28 Aug 2015 22:24:04 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by qgi69 with SMTP id 69so8755932qgi.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 28 Aug 2015 15:24:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc
:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to;
bh=TtwEnt+JTt/169IAW5vj6r3z/2TxX7VPVj3weyYHXYc=;
b=bwdtDc/eyG+c2xe98g1vlY+CYO6soE2rU7H3R0lZekEzn9x854gfqzaB0dhUz28JEg
bPMty8z42CZ4hTKWGrXYDi5G+zKD41cT5+pKUZT+w9BMfNkSicjbBJi+U/t5B1GbFEo7
gvdNbL4Q/yumCczKTKrT2fjodbTeZEoaZuyaj3HtqDoMga0sH+nDV5Co5GvwIqdlyaY1
2Okjq0h3m03/CfvdGcHnZSM0wjZDSKGHC4hKg7v0xDBnRte7w6NR1gYG8s4oWgTv/J9G
y0qicfJUf4dC81mz0aAWRDPYQ2kgfzy2vVJDSrOTV22DZFAqwoF4KAdAa4LWek8cDNrr
njJQ==
X-Received: by 10.140.152.144 with SMTP id 138mr21408530qhy.19.1440800643240;
Fri, 28 Aug 2015 15:24:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.12] (c-24-91-28-148.hsd1.ma.comcast.net.
[24.91.28.148]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id
s89sm4272459qks.36.2015.08.28.15.24.02
(version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
Fri, 28 Aug 2015 15:24:02 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Gavin <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (12F70)
In-Reply-To: <2081355.cHxjDEpgpW@crushinator>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 18:24:01 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A30CC2E3-A769-445C-95A2-35B963EFC283@gmail.com>
References: <CADJgMzvWKA79NHE2uFy1wb-zL3sjC5huspQcaDczxTqD_7gXOg@mail.gmail.com>
<CADr=VrQR6rYK4sJJsDpUdFJaWZqhv=AkMqcG64EhsOCg1tDxVg@mail.gmail.com>
<CADJgMzvkBDBD9_=53kaD_6_jWH=vbWOnNwOKK5GOz8Du-F08dQ@mail.gmail.com>
<2081355.cHxjDEpgpW@crushinator>
To: Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE,
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@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
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 <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: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 22:24:04 -0000
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 2=
0BTC 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@li=
sts.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>=20
> This is the best proposal I've seen yet. Allow me to summarize:
>=20
> =E2=80=A2 It addresses the problem, in Jeff Garzik's BIP 100, of miners se=
lling their block-size votes.
> =E2=80=A2 It addresses the problem, in Gavin Andresen's BIP 101, of blindl=
y trying to predict future market needs versus future technological capaciti=
es.
> =E2=80=A2 It avoids a large step discontinuity in the block-size limit by s=
tarting 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 vot=
e to raise the block-size limit.
> =E2=80=A2 It avoids incentivizing miners to vote to lower the block-size l=
imit.
>=20
> However, this proposal currently fails to answer a very important question=
:
>=20
> =E2=80=A2 What is the mechanism for activation of the new consensus rule? I=
t is when a certain percentage of the blocks mined in a 2016-block retargeti=
ng period contain valid block-size votes?
>=20
>=20
> https://github.com/btcdrak/bips/blob/bip-cbbsra/bip-cbbrsa.mediawiki
>=20
>=20
>> 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
|
