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
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>) id 1UluCv-0003Nd-6I
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 10 Jun 2013 04:59:53 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of googlemail.com
designates 209.85.215.171 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.215.171;
envelope-from=john.dillon892@googlemail.com;
helo=mail-ea0-f171.google.com;
Received: from mail-ea0-f171.google.com ([209.85.215.171])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1UluCu-0002GU-DG
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 10 Jun 2013 04:59:53 +0000
Received: by mail-ea0-f171.google.com with SMTP id m14so5056249eaj.2
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sun, 09 Jun 2013 21:59:46 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.15.54.4 with SMTP id s4mr9143628eew.49.1370840385873; Sun,
09 Jun 2013 21:59:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.223.12.141 with HTTP; Sun, 9 Jun 2013 21:59:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAFBxzACPpLd1gmoAzxviU2rLPry=cGNQhEZvYV=q_PLRQQ5wXw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPaL=UWcKmnChw0zYGVduzHHdQ-AgG7uqbCLvjjuW6Q67zmS0g@mail.gmail.com>
<CAFBxzACPpLd1gmoAzxviU2rLPry=cGNQhEZvYV=q_PLRQQ5wXw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 04:59:45 +0000
Message-ID: <CAPaL=UWuYA6OaW9==5=TJdcq_+-dw57KNwCvabNUc50A+Pw7cg@mail.gmail.com>
From: John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>
To: Edmund Broadley <rebroad@gmail.com>,
Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(john.dillon892[at]googlemail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
0.2 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in
digit (john.dillon892[at]googlemail.com)
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1UluCu-0002GU-DG
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: Vote on the blocksize limit
with proof-of-stake voting
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 04:59:53 -0000
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 4:44 AM, Edmund Broadley <rebroad@gmail.com> wrote:
> I really like this idea. I also like that users with no clue will leave
> their vote to the default chosen by the software developers, which hopefully
> will be 1MB. I like how coin age is factored in do votes are hopefully
> proportional to bitcoin assert ownership.
The default should *not* be set by wallets at all in fact. The default is that
by not voting, you accept the status quo, which is defined as the mean of the
old and new limits in the past year.
So lets say the limit is 1MB, and through voting it ends up at 2MB in one year.
Until that time by not voting you are in effect voting for the limit to be 1MB,
but after the next interval you not voting is equivalent to voting for a 1.5MB
limit. A subtle issue is then txout age, and at that point a 1.5 year old txout
should be like voting for the 1MB limit still, albeit weighted less. What you
don't want is your lack of vote to suddenly turn into a 1.5MB vote. This makes
sure that at all levels the increases are gradual rather than abrupt, although
the rate of increase may still be quite fast if the community votes that way.
(first derivative of the limit is a close approximation to a continuous
function)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJRtV0iAAoJEEWCsU4mNhiPRDIH+wapKxD0fc2div9gkhxZ4qVt
9Wh4u1vKM4RsxdPgh9uKFJomjErBXBROJ57cJqB1rwHt1xhUyHgbC8JstU0PWzUM
Ygwgibe9nsSjqHp2w15Bat+NmkYpxrjmVhf9woZkPQl+A1bWd3MFXOGoTIPPCl3I
KkMTaR3VbZDwqg0DlteZMR2im2DkT4zDsCkSb8KSCoaeTEdafkPceVHWU6isWxV9
Y0TGFCKaoMjxqxnkgH+vHsJlIM4E3rb0NHTo8rHD7Hm1txw/4/fVwE56/9U+8FaK
XAPXS0gkIR83V7cWMLa/q6LpZyzJmfFXCZhjT4YxVqeq/wB/SR9j2hhNdLnjuCo=
=y1c+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
