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
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
|
Return-Path: <eric@voskuil.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 050B7596
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 13 May 2017 05:36:35 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-pg0-f42.google.com (mail-pg0-f42.google.com [74.125.83.42])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 883E4F0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 13 May 2017 05:36:34 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-pg0-f42.google.com with SMTP id x64so19418760pgd.3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 12 May 2017 22:36:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=voskuil-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent
:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=hAyza67b7RAQGI5F5GaY8429lFzQndRYQ9G6CTYULSc=;
b=yEX/0DENRk4WE9BhRpWjs+XG2W2BhDq4Bn08Q0AAC+TmEnv728ENk2E2VvTfuQ0VfN
VsIDbX5pQOfM7/1E4NkQjJPS2VLnPd4+lelHSLveCnmF4kHJ98rU1zfmaT/hqYJq9zTA
uOSQZad8LqZ1ohb1QzxxmWq3btRUiTS7iheQj0dkJ1EoS8mFFJxpRP45qZVFz+fJEqZ3
0DjaYbQrmsoQv4ZUlKJiIKj8VWc84lT1jf4mpymHnDsUV+iE7e8Q3NMoPJ9jJmghF6iP
QVMEbpZDMKQJcZ/xdB925Uc98ZY5iVIPowTqfp7/Jgzy9Z6ZbZGqdafPoJMAZQA/KvtR
eTHA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date
:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=hAyza67b7RAQGI5F5GaY8429lFzQndRYQ9G6CTYULSc=;
b=gf+U76NseHTHvc6Dbc+Y8YJrzp2rWQ9MXx5DMaR6i8Y5hNhyjn3y587Uwva0N/daZ3
qdQppj4VMfFYnem2EW7NQO2jBsyRgpiq9AfSrPmufUPkMhtjhgzezDI0gfpHnjUpiuyd
g3BSmGvbjfakr6ZeKqY91XhSx8Gg6JUu1ITp5PaIgC4gERE87IAcmceGQFT06tZ3iyYx
qUdPk4OZQJshHtWrPaN6KiERNpC7RG8FPd76omD8Iy0TpMVR5d+pTohDE5drU5XxZMmA
PBjVpk/WIGPGGguBMfoVG/vQd3xfFBcoIoSHzz8zlGcryJMNlfC/xV5cfTK+EqKoWVa8
9D6w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcDYiHKRnctCV7l7dJUw3lm57CNvJ5ds6UQHS8XsYuV9CUyzEYtH
/4wHKcRyYGjzSxSfFg8=
X-Received: by 10.99.163.67 with SMTP id v3mr8215523pgn.210.1494653793792;
Fri, 12 May 2017 22:36:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:600:9000:d69e:61d3:178c:ac5f:3df2?
([2601:600:9000:d69e:61d3:178c:ac5f:3df2])
by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id
r73sm8755650pfa.65.2017.05.12.22.36.32
(version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Fri, 12 May 2017 22:36:33 -0700 (PDT)
To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
References: <201705121922.57445.luke@dashjr.org>
<20170512222214.GA4462@fedora-23-dvm>
<201705130049.33798.luke@dashjr.org>
<c1a9b1d9-2810-0343-980d-45000c8600a8@voskuil.org>
<9wQ5nhkJrHXumjwhT4rUh4oqyVJXw1GaOgbfk3snTRms7BD_k39hfsNlpbs7sZ4hWpXzt1F0yzQeWky_INbTTLyCwybyVqUTdlvGBg8Qkpo=@protonmail.com>
From: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <ba058f96-b113-f0d7-3a49-0f63336ac0b5@voskuil.org>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 22:36:43 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/45.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <9wQ5nhkJrHXumjwhT4rUh4oqyVJXw1GaOgbfk3snTRms7BD_k39hfsNlpbs7sZ4hWpXzt1F0yzQeWky_INbTTLyCwybyVqUTdlvGBg8Qkpo=@protonmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,
RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 13 May 2017 12:27:54 +0000
Cc: "bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP: Block signal enforcement via tx fees
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: Sat, 13 May 2017 05:36:35 -0000
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 05/12/2017 08:54 PM, ZmnSCPxj wrote:
> Good morning,
>
>> I do not see why any person would want to pay, and then trust,
>> another to mine accordingly. Each person can mine and attain
>> their level of influence. This not only avoids the side payment,
>> but earns the person money.
>
> The problem, is that, the rate of conversion of Bitcoin-> hashrate
> is different for different people.
>
> For some, it's very cheap to convert Bitcoin -> hashrate. For
> others, it's very expensive. The reason, is the large difference
> in electricity rates depending on country.
>
> It's all very well for those who can get electricity cheaply. But,
> for some, it is not.
>
> Thus, paying someone with better Bitcoin->hashrate conversion via
> fees such as these is more economically logical, than to suffer a
> lower Bitcoin->hashrate conversion.
Despite the tedious explanation of absolute advantage, this is simply
an argument for all people to pay one person to mine, as there is
presumably always one person who will be able to mine more efficiently
than all others.
The argument fails to recognize that mining for one's self may (or may
not) result in a net loss, but donating to a miner in the hope of some
action is comparatively a total loss. One is an expense in exchange
for the intended social outcome, and the other is payment for
representative government.
And in this form of representative government that you propose, if we
assume that miners are somehow bound to honor the payments (votes),
how are the votes distributed? Is this supposed to be democratic in
the sense of one person one vote? Your argument below is clearly based
on that idea. However the result would be very different. The
wealthier would of course exert the greater influence. So the idea
fails by its own standard.
>> If a person does not want to bother then he/she clearly does not
>> have a strong opinion. As developers we should be focused on
>> reducing the complexities of mining and of validation, not
>> finding ways for people to avoid participating in these
>> necessarily distributed roles.
>
> It is also, very obviously, clear that you are operating under
> very strange assumptions, that all people are already equal
> somehow, or that someone who is paid x10 more is strictly superior,
> even though skill-wise and ability-wise, they are the same, and the
> one paid less is simply suffering due to the country where he or
> she is born in, through no fault of their own.
You are making a political argument wrapped in appeal to emotion. Both
are pointless in this context.
e
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJZFptnAAoJEDzYwH8LXOFOs34IAIciCyrn7FMq7leiQ6jAvr3g
sW9YRQ403IJd9BiBj3lI6xpsxtJ4zezkU2AFZUTf9X6AoIX/UJtPb8clb4RIpicf
ACK+iec4YM+15kgPcLyLij3aALvNNCNQ+XuXeHT1bHqfukP+bc/DBAnm48qGvW9o
ugRIFFWqtt8FB9MAh/VM6SsfaQc3D8hk6Dh3SyEVzohkrgWpRVQKNGD/FYY8odCA
8KPo/R3jrgO6JNR0EGxR3SatuKLYUgMcl3n63fanAOh8ESHGHHiP0SEpYoG3wOCt
eAyEcPI4SezJHBjJWcsPe0hhLg0HkvFaLwQe8tGHXrCzsZ18QTNBA0h9npWqqi4=
=LKcb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
