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
|
Return-Path: <pete@petertodd.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF98BB36
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 25 Aug 2015 20:16:51 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from outmail149058.authsmtp.co.uk (outmail149058.authsmtp.co.uk
[62.13.149.58])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E5942A5
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 25 Aug 2015 20:16:49 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-c235.authsmtp.com (mail-c235.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.235])
by punt16.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t7PKGmKx008814;
Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:16:48 +0100 (BST)
Received: from muck ([50.58.157.74]) (authenticated bits=128)
by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t7PKGhZT055024
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO);
Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:16:46 +0100 (BST)
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 13:16:43 -0700
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Chun Wang <1240902@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20150825201643.GC11083@muck>
References: <CAED3CWipF8u5g3LUrqfyHxvEk4Lu+d12ZOJZnoBUw6iZZOg-ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAFzgq-x9GBbqARyhMgfSPc=wYeBgzXy4VUQ0D76GC+TCAxWDuA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="PuGuTyElPB9bOcsM"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAFzgq-x9GBbqARyhMgfSPc=wYeBgzXy4VUQ0D76GC+TCAxWDuA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Server-Quench: 36823e63-4b66-11e5-b398-002590a15da7
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
bgdMdAcUGUATAgsB AmMbWVVeUVt7XWQ7 bgpPaA1DY09JQQJu
T01BRU1TWkFvYWd2 XnR6Uhx3dwdCNnd3 YUIsXXZTXkcvc0Vg
RhxSE3AHZDJldTIc WUhFdwNWdQpKLx5A PgF4GhFYa3VsNCMk
FAgyOXU9MCtqYAhE RAgILFkbRUIaVhU7 QQwYGjErEEFNbSQv
JBsnLBY2GEEaMQ0J MEksEXcRI1c5AxU8 V3JnIRcRfkkRD29j IRlTU1IreAAA
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1023:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 50.58.157.74/587
X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own
anti-virus system.
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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, 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 20:16:51 -0000
--PuGuTyElPB9bOcsM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 05:19:28PM +0800, Chun Wang via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Proposal 1 looks good, but tx fee collected can be manipulated by
> miners. I like the idea next block collect the tx fee from previous
> block.
What would you think of an approach like John Dillon's proposal to
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 majority.
I think in principle that would give all parties a clear voice in the
matter, which in turn makes whatever the result is more legitimit and
less controversial.
--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000013a6653562bcb4bda7570118635eeaa8597108576bc9733b
--PuGuTyElPB9bOcsM
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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==
=zSp6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--PuGuTyElPB9bOcsM--
|
