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
|
Return-Path: <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1407FA4
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 3 Sep 2015 17:57:49 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ig0-f175.google.com (mail-ig0-f175.google.com
[209.85.213.175])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 75960134
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 3 Sep 2015 17:57:49 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by igbut12 with SMTP id ut12so46460449igb.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 03 Sep 2015 10:57:49 -0700 (PDT)
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:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=mpMhqozwkeEVI7UE5u4IBEMtKyjmFfa6mAbQr9N2pzU=;
b=eEjlzCtcj9lc8RBcr9ngGLw5HgmeAEMpAO2WD+K1Z/v541JiDiXRMc9aWRJtWB/OEl
4oJQ9koRE75YnyXxyZtPZItt8+zkG31cSaRTfus/mnKoHucP41e9cBkEES3y75p7xcaV
RNdUFCv6Ap8X0DTgz5jhsIgdWbpEJ1rg3Y+MSR9s3Kruy82rkMmCY43fn9LV2LGXBQ2Q
xV0XikBgf87xi/zRII+/LNWga2sMTcOcfvfDh3He5wwIlXK/SaKcq/7XgbibyZzA5bD0
q1F8ajbxCDG6D2MDY1wvTeDLbym9MjIunnpkxr2LxpBGe57TwxH/6frJPNiIL5KkeZ4W
v6Hw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.13.100 with SMTP id g4mr675426igc.62.1441303068973; Thu,
03 Sep 2015 10:57:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.107.19.30 with HTTP; Thu, 3 Sep 2015 10:57:48 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CADm_WcYwErO1Av_DkMecATQEMFKL7TNZc1Nbs88k-yEKN2vbsQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADm_Wcb+5Xo3HS-FNUYtCapVpYfVvUS_fxpU0Q=TZHJW1=iAFQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgQOi0amBnPK8Ac3iGDN9CP-mLW6o0ncYdSAOAaqSboejg@mail.gmail.com>
<CADm_WcYS-zbNFQJ5EPqqkQ5NhgoQNQAgs-SaF_ZZr0QCNFA3_w@mail.gmail.com>
<CADm_WcYwErO1Av_DkMecATQEMFKL7TNZc1Nbs88k-yEKN2vbsQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 17:57:48 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgS=sBYscxa+xzi6d2h61HxgeRfdaTj55ospc3oKYgKOXg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM,
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] block size - pay with difficulty
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: Thu, 03 Sep 2015 17:57:50 -0000
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail.com> wrote:
> Expanding on pay-with-diff and volatility (closing comment),
>
> Users and miners will have significant difficulty creating and/or predict=
ing
> a stable block size (and fee environment) with pay-with-diff across the
> months. The ability of businesses to plan is low. Chaos and
> unpredictability are bad in general for markets and systems. Thus the
> binary conclusion of "not get used" or "volatility"
Sorry, I'm still not following. I agree that predictability is important.
I don't follow where unpredictability is coming from here. Most (all?)
of the difficulty based adjustments had small limits on the difficulty
change that wouldn't have substantially changed the interblock times
relative to orphaning.
> It's written as 'a' and/or 'b'. If you don't have idle hashpower, then p=
aying with difficulty requires some amount of collusion ('a')
> Any miner paying with a higher difficulty either needs idle hashpower, or=
self-increase their own difficulty at the possible opportunity cost of los=
ing an entire block's income to another miner who doesn't care about changi=
ng the block size. The potential loss does not economically compensate for=
size increase gains in most cases, when you consider the variability of bl=
ocks (they come in bursts and pauses) and the fee income that would be asso=
ciated
What the schemes propose is blocksize that increases fast with
difficulty over a narrow window. The result is that your odds of
producing a block are slightly reduced but the block you produce if
you do is more profitable: but only if there is a good supply of
transactions which pay real fees compariable to the ones you're
already taking. The same trade-off exists at the moment with respect
to orphaning risk and miners still produce large blocks, producing a
larger block means a greater chance you're not successful (due to
orphaning) but you have a greater utility. The orphing mediated risk
is fragile and can be traded off for centeralization advantage or by
miners bypassing validation, issues which at least so far we have no
reason to believe exist for size mediated schemes.
As you know, mining is not a race (ignoring edge effects with
orphaning/propagation time). Increasing difficulty does not put you at
an expected return disavantage compared to other miners so long as the
income increases at least proportionally (otherwise pooling with low
diff shares would be an astronomically losing proposition :)!).
Pay-for-size schemes have been successfully used in some altcoins
without the effects you're suggesting.
|
