Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F0FCC596 for ; Sat, 13 May 2017 05:47:01 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3353010A for ; Sat, 13 May 2017 05:47:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:5:265:a45d:823b:2d27:961c]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5956D38A0082; Sat, 13 May 2017 05:45:26 +0000 (UTC) X-Hashcash: 1:25:170513:eric@voskuil.org::B2Lys7knOjefxw3c:h14q/ X-Hashcash: 1:25:170513:pete@petertodd.org::StGcCmvGWyol/EmI:aWdRu X-Hashcash: 1:25:170513:ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com::N0TYXBV/sj9cvsI9:bgsdk X-Hashcash: 1:25:170513:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::nmV6St3ypFPdSSSZ:QJ+x From: Luke Dashjr To: Eric Voskuil Date: Sat, 13 May 2017 05:45:24 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.9.16-gentoo; KDE/4.14.29; x86_64; ; ) References: <201705121922.57445.luke@dashjr.org> <201705130049.33798.luke@dashjr.org> In-Reply-To: X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201705130545.25398.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP: Block signal enforcement via tx fees X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 13 May 2017 05:47:02 -0000 On Saturday 13 May 2017 3:26:08 AM Eric Voskuil wrote: > If people want to influence the decisions of miners, all they need to > do is mine. Most people cannot mine except at a huge expense (profit is limited to few people via monopoly and electric costs). But more importantly, the profits from every miner you buy will go to pay for Bitmain growing their arsenal more than enough to offset your influence. Mining is simply broken at this point. > There is nothing inherently wrong with paying people to run nodes or > signal "readiness", but there is no reason whatsoever to consider > these ideas beneficial from a personal/economic or > security/decentralization standpoint. Running a node and mining are two very different things. > The argument fails to recognize that mining for one's self may (or may > not) result in a net loss, but donating to a miner in the hope of some > action is comparatively a total loss. One is an expense in exchange > for the intended social outcome, and the other is payment for > representative government. > > And in this form of representative government that you propose, if we > assume that miners are somehow bound to honor the payments (votes), ... First of all, this isn't donating to miners, but forbidding them from mining your transaction (and thereby collecting your transaction fee) unless they signal for the softfork. Secondly, your argument here assumes miners are a government or control Bitcoin in some way. This is not correct. Miners are entrusted with enforcement of softforks *for old nodes only*, and therefore given the ability to trigger activation of the new rules via signalling. But entrusting them with this is NOT done by the system itself, but by the users, whose updated nodes are the primary mechanism for enforcing softforks. So miners are in fact already bound to honour the wishes of the greater economy, and their refusal to do so is an attack on the network. Luke