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
|
Return-Path: <jgarzik@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 725B3DBD
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 16 Dec 2015 21:27:17 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ig0-f170.google.com (mail-ig0-f170.google.com
[209.85.213.170])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 293E4ED
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 16 Dec 2015 21:27:16 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ig0-f170.google.com with SMTP id to18so67640269igc.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 16 Dec 2015 13:27:16 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:cc:content-type;
bh=0euevp4whw9DjNyo7hjiQqj5jBohHELRfY7cxKOCxJY=;
b=mNHwkqn8J1t7Essaic+B+ZHMuceR7NfK2eIlXvcevSJbb1HB0T3tM+wVxnQiSQU88d
RkV6eS08aUs3zY0hLrwI6t2kz2OnkSK72dWYr8dOB7bgLvPZ8tCUWH/1UCfZk4Qvik5/
7hBhb81mLaquNh4fq3VDJlM1ScN2TCtYnZw5ksYoOeGY+RWBL9v3Rtvp2rbiuW8IKKos
MHY0B0zRU4vp8FxtBjhPDoCgO/gnJCnsW8npDJ1krvIyxbcfg5Kl2xdi6iwInfY9Aodk
zHv1upgnnCW+i3NAtAoxrMq4US+yI7Au+O7MrMn1uHC7vPEhZQekxe3pM2zhJWmMizoG
zS9g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.51.17.39 with SMTP id gb7mr13400509igd.54.1450301235691;
Wed, 16 Dec 2015 13:27:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.79.8.198 with HTTP; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 13:27:15 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBhUso0ddfYQMgwF7yX9_VoqP9CZN5h45t3eQi4v3m6f6A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADm_WcYWh5EnBCzQQVc04sf-0seh2zrmc+5dH8Z-Bo78jhPnfA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPg+sBhUso0ddfYQMgwF7yX9_VoqP9CZN5h45t3eQi4v3m6f6A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 16:27:15 -0500
Message-ID: <CADm_WcYZq3nzfYMXfzkZsTCsgmzy4L_nYpa5Kax8uF_ajuUTiQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail.com>
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1134b41ef8881205270a918f
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,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 development mailing list <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Segregated Witness in the context of Scaling
Bitcoin
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: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 21:27:17 -0000
--001a1134b41ef8881205270a918f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 9:38 PM, Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > 4.3. Observations on new block economic model
> >
> > SW complicates block economics by creating two separate, supply limited
> > resources.
>
> Not correct. I propose defining the virtual_block_size as base_size +
> witness_size * 0.25, and limiting virtual_block_size to 1M. This
> creates a single variable to optimize for. If accepted, miners are
> incentived to maximize fee per virtual_block_size instead of per size.
>
It is correct. There are two separate sets of economic actors and levels
of contention for each set of space.
That is true regardless of the proposed miner selection algorithm.
> > 5.4. Problem: More complex economic policy, new game theory, new
> bidding
> > structure risks.
> >
> > Splitting blocks into two pieces, each with separate and distinct
> behaviors
> > and resource values, creates two fee markets.
>
> I believe you have misunderstood the proposal in that case.
>
See above. There are two separate and distinct resource velocities and
demand levels in reality. That creates two markets regardless of miner
selection algorithm in the block maker.
--001a1134b41ef8881205270a918f
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
te">On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Pieter Wuille <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a=
href=3D"mailto:pieter.wuille@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">pieter.wuille@gm=
ail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D=
"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=
=3D"">On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 9:38 PM, Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev<br>
<<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@li=
sts.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> 4.3.=C2=A0 Observations on new block economic model<br>
><br>
> SW complicates block economics by creating two separate, supply limite=
d<br>
> resources.<br>
<br>
</span>Not correct. I propose defining the virtual_block_size as base_size =
+<br>
witness_size * 0.25, and limiting virtual_block_size to 1M. This<br>
creates a single variable to optimize for. If accepted, miners are<br>
incentived to maximize fee per virtual_block_size instead of per size.<br><=
/blockquote><div><br></div><div>It is correct.=C2=A0 There are two separate=
sets of economic actors and levels of contention for each set of space. =
=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>That is true regardless of the proposed min=
er selection algorithm.</div><div><br></div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote cl=
ass=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;p=
adding-left:1ex"><span class=3D"">> 5.4.=C2=A0 Problem:=C2=A0 =C2=A0More=
complex economic policy, new game theory, new bidding<br>
> structure risks.<br>
><br>
> Splitting blocks into two pieces, each with separate and distinct beha=
viors<br>
> and resource values, creates two fee markets.<br>
<br>
</span>I believe you have misunderstood the proposal in that case.<br></blo=
ckquote><div><br></div><div>See above.=C2=A0 There are two separate and dis=
tinct resource velocities and demand levels in reality.=C2=A0 That creates =
two markets regardless of miner selection algorithm in the block maker.</di=
v><div><br></div><div></div></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></di=
v></div>
--001a1134b41ef8881205270a918f--
|
