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
|
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 13FD1C3C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 25 Aug 2015 20:37:54 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from outmail149075.authsmtp.net (outmail149075.authsmtp.net
[62.13.149.75])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B7E22CE
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 25 Aug 2015 20:37:52 +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 t7PKbo16049080;
Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:37:50 +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 t7PKbjP8024175
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO);
Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:37:48 +0100 (BST)
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 13:37:44 -0700
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name>
Message-ID: <20150825203744.GB3464@muck>
References: <CAED3CWipF8u5g3LUrqfyHxvEk4Lu+d12ZOJZnoBUw6iZZOg-ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAFzgq-x9GBbqARyhMgfSPc=wYeBgzXy4VUQ0D76GC+TCAxWDuA@mail.gmail.com>
<20150825201643.GC11083@muck> <1489961.GhSFCGzPRJ@crushinator>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="K8nIJk4ghYZn606h"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1489961.GhSFCGzPRJ@crushinator>
X-Server-Quench: 2670caae-4b69-11e5-b398-002590a15da7
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
bgdMdAcUGUATAgsB AmMbWVVeU1p7XWo7 bgpPaA1DY09JQQJu
T01BRU1TWkFvYWdT XH4WUht2dgJDNn9y YU9kEHJdW0QpJBco
X0oGE2QbZGY1bX1N U0lQagNUcgZDfk5E bwQuUz1vNG8XDSg5
AwQ0PjZ0MThBHWx5 UwcEKFMZSEIPD3YX QBYeBzIrGUAJDw8y
MxchK1hUNkIWOUZ6 ClozVBo9Og9aIQRG fQl+Kg5hbwARV2Ju RS9AVEACJVUA
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 20:37:54 -0000
--K8nIJk4ghYZn606h
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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 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.
>=20
> What fraction of coin holders do you suppose will vote? And, of those, wh=
at 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%. Ordinary users just are=
n't going to be able to vote meaningfully, and most won't respond to the po=
ll at all.
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. Equally,
you can make the same criticism of democracy in general.
An interesting idea would be to design a voting mechanism such that only
users with access to validating nodes be able to vote - a fundemental
requirement for users to fully participate in Bitcoin's goverance.
--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000000ba8add4a8edc1b0467e9e377da016834d2abff3fc8ce1fb
--K8nIJk4ghYZn606h
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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==
=C7J2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--K8nIJk4ghYZn606h--
|
