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
|
Return-Path: <eric@voskuil.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 64525ADC
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:28:02 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-pa0-f54.google.com (mail-pa0-f54.google.com
[209.85.220.54])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DDD7D1B7
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:28:01 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by pacti10 with SMTP id ti10so63138152pac.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 25 Aug 2015 14:28:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to
:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type;
bh=5Tlb4hef+tScFs9J6dVubnls7bbnxXd8OUlGsREOItw=;
b=JgxxkQyod61P0bdOjhG6cqgRuIteq80wLY3Dr8NYpKScT1CY1LCt5uyI/d+PlXC8Io
ei9MuJwCSCRdgfyX4tqtKGKOXBC3ozCOpfgjsbSOPfwDnrM+8YXuGTCeCuSx2FkyoeCe
e2L557b+7cRIN5CpSadgtKrSEXp1iU88sYT8vKNFvyeeUuVrst79ARtOi0h5UOuznxu6
NrKozwpmaFvGC07KMSEuMlHFRozWOpZvs3+o85ypDRzzTFmrGTBCYZ3z1E8Sp8sexkGs
cjsce1okWfbmggdxW3iqC6lJIY4bfniG6Xjk4Mr5A9pqH9xWljjuId9mckLRmnAgM/dy
CCBw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnp6uKBodhzZB/+ooR17Oi4SUnwdhP37/i1MZhqFzRklgT6ii3HHSM8Iu6qYgiLMeznKGAw
X-Received: by 10.68.174.100 with SMTP id br4mr60510037pbc.73.1440538081621;
Tue, 25 Aug 2015 14:28:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:600:9001:8060:413b:a0cd:5ef:bc55?
([2601:600:9001:8060:413b:a0cd:5ef:bc55])
by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id
si1sm22101066pbc.72.2015.08.25.14.28.00
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
Tue, 25 Aug 2015 14:28:00 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <55DCDDEB.2030600@voskuil.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 14:28:11 -0700
From: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name>, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>,
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
References: <CAED3CWipF8u5g3LUrqfyHxvEk4Lu+d12ZOJZnoBUw6iZZOg-ZQ@mail.gmail.com> <1489961.GhSFCGzPRJ@crushinator>
<20150825203744.GB3464@muck> <1555170.JCnkl2i9KN@crushinator>
In-Reply-To: <1555170.JCnkl2i9KN@crushinator>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature";
boundary="lr3OaiSUmwNoniRCIre06IKK0QnOUcf98"
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: 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 21:28:02 -0000
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--lr3OaiSUmwNoniRCIre06IKK0QnOUcf98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> just as in democracy in general
One should be clear that Bitcoin is by no possible measure a democracy.
The proposed vote is on what goes into a particular github repository.
The outcome is ultimately controlled by those with control of that
repository.
Bitcoin is an anarchy by design. People will use whatever they want.
e
On 08/25/2015 02:14 PM, Matt Whitlock via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Tuesday, 25 August 2015, at 1:37 pm, Peter Todd wrote:
>> 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 we=
re
>>>> willing to use, limited in turn by the vote of the economic majority=
=2E
>>>
>>> What fraction of coin holders do you suppose will vote? And, of
those, what 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 aren't going to be able to vote meaningfully, and
most won't respond to the poll 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.
>
> Yes, car buyers do make those kinds of decisions through market
mechanisms. An equivalent process for Bitcoin would be that the max
block-size limit (and other fundamental economic parameters) would be
determined via a process of forking off altcoins (such as Bitcoin XT
will do) and allowing the market to decide which coin is most valuable.
This is the "default" mechanism for change (because it's what naturally
happens when there is a lack of internal consensus), but it's not the
least painful mechanism.
>
> My point still stands that =E2=80=94 just as in democracy in general =E2=
=80=94 the
voters are really in no position to cast informed votes, nor should they
be (cf. "rational ignorance" [1]). I do not oppose opening up the
determination of the max block-size limit to a popular "check" via
stakeholder vote =E2=80=94 actually, I think this is an important check o=
n
miners' power =E2=80=94 but I do argue that the vote is likely to have
drastically little participation and very low-quality results.
>
> [1] Rational Ignorance: =C2=ABIgnorance about an issue is said to be
"rational" when the cost of educating oneself about the issue
sufficiently to make an informed decision can outweigh any potential
benefit one could reasonably expect to gain from that decision, and so
it would be irrational to waste time doing so.=C2=BB
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_ignorance>
--lr3OaiSUmwNoniRCIre06IKK0QnOUcf98
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJV3N3rAAoJEDzYwH8LXOFOvp4H/0LHi9a6dWAfUp80nSGrBi/R
mef4xnZtsNMFGE7iEp2E47coKbFaFoqLLXW1WriXzo6gPxBuvqMNcUuSjTurmaJg
G+a9dwTkR76SUs5v8hJF8dhfjPIaB+P2AKI5UVVMwGN63lBZl0k40nR7mkENjLIR
XpQD6A3pLKJmaAcztD7sj594FPRqy17jRwMLCVe1Kq5pSRGD4y9pt9OyBi9lo5hs
3yfsRfrktROH9IhBRL1OgkdMBqAd0cqixpytKnlH2H05Pxl/aDWM6DYcUJ6k1iGB
7D35JgHhMcUFAxIQRRCYejZrALvaowDJoXkwNJKCXQMREgLomk9ByOBcF44aKgM=
=sbJV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--lr3OaiSUmwNoniRCIre06IKK0QnOUcf98--
|
