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
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
|
Return-Path: <mark@friedenbach.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 820A883D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 29 Aug 2015 00:29:44 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-io0-f195.google.com (mail-io0-f195.google.com
[209.85.223.195])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC0B1134
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 29 Aug 2015 00:29:43 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by ioej130 with SMTP id j130so2503061ioe.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 28 Aug 2015 17:29:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type;
bh=1zhj1Hx7Ki85k1h2XpBqvgEA2zalyeRmS8+ZQqeY2Rc=;
b=DcPyu+EBIn/1Ovm1x29I8qqHpvL+ekBmEP/Y9k/9zpDMLIYM8eeLhBJBh8fx6WypUd
r42K5YugfYR9iopr/zuwuXUOGUM/hHEjpFdHQP4dEOY6Ks/jtTd0hRzBFwzptFQdfMxs
He0/hjMuuXTBGtX9UzNgSd8lmv0SnCW5izNskvvIMoDFm3WQczvfiOGkVFaof9PXU9Y7
E4vWE2p2Ru0Q1ueilsC+cDEnc0qVwnx2yA8P2/+nEF1SFqiwBXH2i0pWKe4l7/W3YdJU
tJw8SS0I3iW6shJPCd4FRsB4jfHs65qAe5L8FmnJhQ5+ptbsIHAI/VAhjuI5u/h5HWZK
7/EQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkgKxcbxPlpbDKzp3rpHC8US7HVTFJOAA0eVYOauAB7woDf8QeUQX62ZYR1Iv5f7d0tR5w7
X-Received: by 10.107.25.134 with SMTP id 128mr8454234ioz.159.1440808183141;
Fri, 28 Aug 2015 17:29:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.135.104 with HTTP; Fri, 28 Aug 2015 17:29:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [173.228.107.141]
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDreJ1PwZu3WgZdj_RR0W9JoQTF9w-Qwyfoh6uk1EM0ajg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADJgMzvWKA79NHE2uFy1wb-zL3sjC5huspQcaDczxTqD_7gXOg@mail.gmail.com>
<CADr=VrQR6rYK4sJJsDpUdFJaWZqhv=AkMqcG64EhsOCg1tDxVg@mail.gmail.com>
<CADJgMzvkBDBD9_=53kaD_6_jWH=vbWOnNwOKK5GOz8Du-F08dQ@mail.gmail.com>
<2081355.cHxjDEpgpW@crushinator>
<A30CC2E3-A769-445C-95A2-35B963EFC283@gmail.com>
<CAB+qUq7ZzLHrFZ5FQazrcALA-b-jFh_bf-XX1GaJbGY1KQB5YA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAOG=w-vkOzGXosc=C7NwX5_ewaT0Sdrkw49gfO+a9hohYctLaw@mail.gmail.com>
<CABm2gDreJ1PwZu3WgZdj_RR0W9JoQTF9w-Qwyfoh6uk1EM0ajg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 17:29:23 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOG=w-uYFbyUF+PZABNvMqHei2-yuoCETtXnfkYV-Rr9-pPKuw@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113fde88f22b2e051e684b8a
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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 Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Consensus based block size retargeting algorithm
(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: Sat, 29 Aug 2015 00:29:44 -0000
--001a113fde88f22b2e051e684b8a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Ah, then my mistake. It seemed so similar to an idea that was proposed
before on this mailing list:
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-May/008033.html
that my mind just filled in the gaps. I concur -- having miners -- or any
group -- vote on block size is not an intrinsically good thing. The the
original proposal due to Greg Maxwell et al was not a mechanism for
"voting" but rather a feedback control that made the maximum block size
that which generated the most fees.
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <jtimon@jtimon.cc> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 1:38 AM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > It is in their individual interests when the larger block that is allow=
ed
> > for them grants them more fees.
>
> I realize now that this is not what Greg Maxwell proposed (aka
> flexcap): this is just miner's voting on block size but paying with
> higher difficulty when they vote for bigger blocks.
> As I said several times in other places, miners should not decide on
> the consensus rule to limit mining centralization.
> People keep talking about miners voting on the block size or
> "softforking the size down if we went too far". But what if the
> hashing majority is perfectly fine with the mining centralization at
> that point in time?
> Then a softfork won't be useful and we're talking about an "anti-miner
> fork" (see
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/181/files#diff-e331b8631759a4ed6a4cf=
b4d10f473caR158
> and
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/181/files#diff-e331b8631759a4ed6a4cf=
b4d10f473caR175
> ).
>
> I believe miner's voting on the rule to limit mining centralization is
> a terrible idea.
> It sounds as bad as letting pharma companies write the regulations on
> new drugs safety, letting big food chains deciding on minimum food
> controls or car manufacturers deciding on indirect taxes for fuel.
> That's why I dislike both this proposal and BIP100.
>
--001a113fde88f22b2e051e684b8a
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Ah, then my mistake. It seemed so similar to an idea =
that was proposed before on this mailing list:<br><br><a href=3D"http://lis=
ts.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-May/008033.html">http://l=
ists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-May/008033.html</a><br>=
<br></div>that my mind just filled in the gaps. I concur -- having miners -=
- or any group -- vote on block size is not an intrinsically good thing. Th=
e the original proposal due to Greg Maxwell et al was not a mechanism for &=
quot;voting" but rather a feedback control that made the maximum block=
size that which generated the most fees.<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extr=
a"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Jorge Ti=
m=C3=B3n <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:jtimon@jtimon.cc" target=
=3D"_blank">jtimon@jtimon.cc</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 Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 1:38 AM, Mark Friedenbac=
h via bitcoin-dev<br>
<<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@li=
sts.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> It is in their individual interests when the larger block that is allo=
wed<br>
> for them grants them more fees.<br>
<br>
</span>I realize now that this is not what Greg Maxwell proposed (aka<br>
flexcap): this is just miner's voting on block size but paying with<br>
higher difficulty when they vote for bigger blocks.<br>
As I said several times in other places, miners should not decide on<br>
the consensus rule to limit mining centralization.<br>
People keep talking about miners voting on the block size or<br>
"softforking the size down if we went too far". But what if the<b=
r>
hashing majority is perfectly fine with the mining centralization at<br>
that point in time?<br>
Then a softfork won't be useful and we're talking about an "an=
ti-miner<br>
fork" (see <a href=3D"https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/181/files#d=
iff-e331b8631759a4ed6a4cfb4d10f473caR158" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_bla=
nk">https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/181/files#diff-e331b8631759a4ed6a4=
cfb4d10f473caR158</a><br>
and=C2=A0 <a href=3D"https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/181/files#diff-e3=
31b8631759a4ed6a4cfb4d10f473caR175" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">ht=
tps://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/181/files#diff-e331b8631759a4ed6a4cfb4d1=
0f473caR175</a><br>
).<br>
<br>
I believe miner's voting on the rule to limit mining centralization is<=
br>
a terrible idea.<br>
It sounds as bad as letting pharma companies write the regulations on<br>
new drugs safety, letting big food chains deciding on minimum food<br>
controls or car manufacturers deciding on indirect taxes for fuel.<br>
That's why I dislike both this proposal and BIP100.<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
--001a113fde88f22b2e051e684b8a--
|
