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
|
Return-Path: <bip@mattwhitlock.name>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 455D38ED
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:15:01 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from resqmta-ch2-03v.sys.comcast.net
(resqmta-ch2-03v.sys.comcast.net [69.252.207.35])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BEAD610D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:15:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from resomta-ch2-03v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.99])
by resqmta-ch2-03v.sys.comcast.net with comcast
id 99Ez1r00529Cfhx019Ez6F; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:14:59 +0000
Received: from crushinator.localnet
([IPv6:2601:186:c000:825e:e9f4:8901:87c7:24a0])
by resomta-ch2-03v.sys.comcast.net with comcast
id 99Ey1r00P4eLRLv019Ezwu; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:14:59 +0000
From: Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>, bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 17:14:58 -0400
Message-ID: <1555170.JCnkl2i9KN@crushinator>
User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.0.5-gentoo; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <20150825203744.GB3464@muck>
References: <CAED3CWipF8u5g3LUrqfyHxvEk4Lu+d12ZOJZnoBUw6iZZOg-ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
<1489961.GhSFCGzPRJ@crushinator> <20150825203744.GB3464@muck>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net;
s=q20140121; t=1440537299;
bh=vZMTcym6nRuzkJL6UZJfxXawODFzGmFdXE1kWtbvQZI=;
h=Received:Received:From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:
Content-Type;
b=lrhv8LS9ZYVCJSErA3tnGic6TuGmPjo3yTN666YPGyxvHIQM+FAuro75p+n/L8WME
JMZlisn67Pv5eBEt1WSm4mlbbV88KGIhooGvfcPgow318eaSZL3uN0A81INVVyUkMS
z1rdZTNc0oroAp5FXQGP8c/gGKQMbv7UbWJsTP2eepmStpa9DnyePimzJA5C02/sfN
RrYWcsenhBjn1PfGjtv+wtTQwEsbD+0qEcRBwFYVNtFlaoO3+ygLlC7D0nqrIZnBn7
XJtzgpQrxHxEYD838iXC6feFjB4uoQ0LubdCOhPNdEy9X2FeZ9DiQNAmvtZQ2Il5dI
kXySrtxYDYojA==
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: greg@xiph.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Dynamically Controlled Bitcoin Block Size Max Cap
[BIP 1xx - 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: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:15:01 -0000
On Tuesday, 25 August 2015, at 1:37 pm, Peter Todd wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 04:26:23PM -0400, Matt Whitlock wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 25 August 2015, at 1:16 pm, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev =
wrote:
> > > What would you think of an approach like John Dillon's proposal t=
o
> > > explicitly give the economic majority of coin holders a vote for =
the max
> > > blocksize? Miners could still vote BIP100 style for what max they=
were
> > > willing to use, limited in turn by the vote of the economic major=
ity.
> >=20
> > What fraction of coin holders do you suppose will vote? And, of tho=
se, what fraction have the technical knowledge to make an informed vote=
? It would be like polling Toyota truck owners to see whether the 2017 =
Tacoma should increase its engine's cylinder displacement by 10%. Ordin=
ary users just aren't going to be able to vote meaningfully, and most w=
on't respond to the poll at all.
>=20
> Note that you can make the % of voters required adapt dyanmically to =
voter
> interest. Also, your example is rather misleading, as car buyers *do*=
> make those kinds of decisions though various market mechanisms.
Yes, car buyers do make those kinds of decisions through market mechani=
sms. An equivalent process for Bitcoin would be that the max block-size=
limit (and other fundamental economic parameters) would be determined =
via a process of forking off altcoins (such as Bitcoin XT will do) and =
allowing the market to decide which coin is most valuable. This is the =
"default" mechanism for change (because it's what naturally happens whe=
n there is a lack of internal consensus), but it's not the least painfu=
l mechanism.
My point still stands that =E2=80=94 just as in democracy in general =E2=
=80=94 the voters are really in no position to cast informed votes, nor=
should they be (cf. "rational ignorance" [1]). I do not oppose opening=
up the determination of the max block-size limit to a popular "check" =
via stakeholder vote =E2=80=94 actually, I think this is an important c=
heck on miners' power =E2=80=94 but I do argue that the vote is likely =
to have drastically little participation and very low-quality results.
[1] Rational Ignorance: =C2=ABIgnorance about an issue is said to be "r=
ational" when the cost of educating oneself about the issue sufficientl=
y to make an informed decision can outweigh any potential benefit one c=
ould reasonably expect to gain from that decision, and so it would be i=
rrational to waste time doing so.=C2=BB <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/=
Rational_ignorance>
|
