Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Z3tqx-0003EX-BU for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 13 Jun 2015 22:24:39 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.220.52 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.220.52; envelope-from=elombrozo@gmail.com; helo=mail-pa0-f52.google.com; Received: from mail-pa0-f52.google.com ([209.85.220.52]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Z3tqv-0005Js-Qb for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 13 Jun 2015 22:24:39 +0000 Received: by pabqy3 with SMTP id qy3so41876163pab.3 for ; Sat, 13 Jun 2015 15:24:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.70.118.5 with SMTP id ki5mr35222033pdb.6.1434234272179; Sat, 13 Jun 2015 15:24:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.102] (cpe-76-167-237-202.san.res.rr.com. [76.167.237.202]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id mb4sm7601994pdb.63.2015.06.13.15.24.29 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 13 Jun 2015 15:24:30 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\)) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_487E7E07-A406-49A3-B708-0D74B3D1DC24"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5b6 From: Eric Lombrozo In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 15:24:26 -0700 Message-Id: <4A6DFE58-02F6-40D5-833F-67348D722D0D@gmail.com> References: <20150612181153.GB19199@muck> To: Danny Thorpe X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098) X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (elombrozo[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1Z3tqv-0005Js-Qb Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] User vote in blocksize through fees X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 22:24:39 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_487E7E07-A406-49A3-B708-0D74B3D1DC24 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3CC0578E-D2C0-4489-9C3E-AA93AE14951C" --Apple-Mail=_3CC0578E-D2C0-4489-9C3E-AA93AE14951C Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 That=E2=80=99s exactly the problem with Bitcoin - it was supposed to be = the case that users ARE the miners and node operators=E2=80=A6but=E2=80=A6= alas=E2=80=A6 > On Jun 13, 2015, at 3:20 PM, Danny Thorpe = wrote: >=20 > Please forgive my ignorance, but why should Bitcoin users have a say = in block size limits? It's the miners and Bitcoin node operators that = bear the burden of managing large blocks, no? >=20 > Users voting on network parameters sounds like neighbors voting on how = deep my swimming pool should be. >=20 > Thanks, > -Danny >=20 > On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Peter Todd > wrote: > Jeff Garzik recently proposed that the upper blocksize limit be = removed > entirely, with a "soft" limit being enforced via miner vote, recorded = by > hashing power. >=20 > This mechanism within the protocol for users to have any influence = over > the miner vote. We can add that back by providing a way for = transactions > themselves to set a flag determining whether or not they can be = included > in a block casting a specific vote. >=20 > We can simplify Garzik's vote to say that one of the nVersion bits > either votes for the blocksize to be increased, or decreased, by some > fixed ratio (e.g 2x or 1/2x) the next interval. Then we can use a > nVersion bit in transactions themselves, also voting for an increase = or > decrease. Transactions may only be included in blocks with an > indentical vote, thus providing miners with a monetary incentive via > fees to vote according to user wishes. >=20 > Of course, to cast a "don't care" vote we can either define an > additional bit, or sign the transaction with both versions. Equally we > can even have different versions with different fees, broadcast via a > mechanism such as replace-by-fee. >=20 >=20 > See also John Dillon's proposal for proof-of-stake blocksize voting: >=20 > = https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg= 02323.html = >=20 > -- > 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org > 0000000000000000127ab1d576dc851f374424f1269c4700ccaba2c42d97e778 >=20 > = --------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---- >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net = > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development = >=20 >=20 > = --------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---- > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development --Apple-Mail=_3CC0578E-D2C0-4489-9C3E-AA93AE14951C Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 That=E2=80=99s exactly the problem with Bitcoin - it was = supposed to be the case that users ARE the miners and node = operators=E2=80=A6but=E2=80=A6alas=E2=80=A6

On Jun 13, 2015, at 3:20 PM, Danny Thorpe <danny.thorpe@gmail.com> wrote:

Please forgive my ignorance, but why should Bitcoin users = have a say in block size limits?  It's the miners and Bitcoin node = operators that bear the burden of managing large blocks, no?  

Users voting on network = parameters sounds like neighbors voting on how deep my swimming pool = should be.

Thanks,
-Danny

On Fri, = Jun 12, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
Jeff Garzik recently = proposed that the upper blocksize limit be removed
entirely, with a "soft" limit being enforced via miner vote, recorded = by
hashing power.

This mechanism within the protocol for users to have any influence = over
the miner vote. We can add that back by providing a way for = transactions
themselves to set a flag determining whether or not they can be = included
in a block casting a specific vote.

We can simplify Garzik's vote to say that one of the nVersion bits
either votes for the blocksize to be increased, or decreased, by some
fixed ratio (e.g 2x or 1/2x) the next interval. Then we can use a
nVersion bit in transactions themselves, also voting for an increase = or
decrease. Transactions may only be included in blocks with an
indentical vote, thus providing miners with a monetary incentive via
fees to vote according to user wishes.

Of course, to cast a "don't care" vote we can either define an
additional bit, or sign the transaction with both versions. Equally = we
can even have different versions with different fees, broadcast via a
mechanism such as replace-by-fee.


See also John Dillon's proposal for proof-of-stake blocksize voting:

https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourcefo= rge.net/msg02323.html

--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
0000000000000000127ab1d576dc851f374424f1269c4700ccaba2c42d97e778

---------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------

_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-developmen= t


= --------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-developmen= t

= --Apple-Mail=_3CC0578E-D2C0-4489-9C3E-AA93AE14951C-- --Apple-Mail=_487E7E07-A406-49A3-B708-0D74B3D1DC24 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJVfK2aAAoJEJNAI64YFENUfVoP/3V5Iafc9SoSCkkzjjwBG4e+ AeCc1p6X8WLidwf/DHgc7CRoH/SX1Rmh1Dw9mI+8Ek+8Mf/tvEqtt2pfbmBZ/I3y O3PFJPHhzC9RHV4lp/TkSrwyScg4mF+QUPq28gXczs/aEo3xKLayvYy3If1Xmjyt Vo8/daDLIklEYodRIh9NTyPSVocthQxpI5LEPrLchpgW06BCWLXULdYOeAS319Sx zN/3esKdnDM02UXL1v64jm4pr81hv+oLt7m5kK5dSWaVwV70rcB+NGJ0XEYe0iCQ de0wNOog/HOcWTyzMCvL7K0STN1Wgo0O+0e0u1LjqH9uIJLPp2yB2kc/sv7MpY0Z ieXr7X+5x+sbYwdGfhAnOg6mVUSjV/SXAplOper6XUIryYePjG1Zng7YP6EVEQ3o dOo9V/gmM75/+pCyeewk5FlQ1XbOs7DjfpWK7Dg3c/NKYAFBw8kZ/BvGI/nMlrGu vnHlZKTHkBcSMK0ppr4fHDGp1OWPz/U3EmG5VjBily1oBx7CMWiTaAxwnJSgNa9v Ocsqwa2AUr1fRwIeGv3O6XqqKtJuEX9m435K9uOBV8rBe0rgkLcv+eN/hLjX610W 3hOriISLy36tcMYegzPlaewGbsMiUvAOjAfVqqQM5H/5Dh88OcC+d345tEiaFNmj 72nLt112gQkBwJA7uVbG =40fp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_487E7E07-A406-49A3-B708-0D74B3D1DC24--