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
|
Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7046AEB0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 29 Aug 2015 00:00:14 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-la0-f42.google.com (mail-la0-f42.google.com
[209.85.215.42])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB4C7126
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 29 Aug 2015 00:00:13 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by laba3 with SMTP id a3so41513695lab.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 28 Aug 2015 17:00:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
bh=78ehuL8cNVZ8txYfkIb1at8N98wt0+1ydooROvyrpos=;
b=imP0K6JkJPHsQyfIugVJLceJxQ+j0FQpYNTlETXttkbKbYsp7sgZsnKWnY663gm/DX
C7yELIecaRtAVvxjV6ZBv0tnCZN0lqEvAzZipcF3I4tQRDHsRv3ZmdiIi8dkPdBrYDnS
HmAlaVoECUC7BeickvX7zgRGku6pEBcX0Q0DOfMqoF0fi6xB04xy8eTb4rb59cjnB38c
GQv5DXw3kPtwg4XFAYe6jCNyLm7S3SmQyDHFqa1GjBcdWy2WxltLFNisqbaCUcA+uVWM
/kGcXaYEnPHHZSjRvLa2SweUXuARD2SSsATEz6WJwAsQmRPZIvzG9s3AVrKdF5zzMsOQ
C09w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkHnAe9uu5Ap/qRjMcyXsZKhHzb+2kOsWOHCGrxDpXOoqklkeS4t+aSUoyRsoX5h7fI/gH5
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.7.237 with SMTP id m13mr5846959laa.39.1440806412066;
Fri, 28 Aug 2015 17:00:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.25.15.22 with HTTP; Fri, 28 Aug 2015 17:00:11 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAOG=w-vkOzGXosc=C7NwX5_ewaT0Sdrkw49gfO+a9hohYctLaw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADJgMzvWKA79NHE2uFy1wb-zL3sjC5huspQcaDczxTqD_7gXOg@mail.gmail.com>
<CADr=VrQR6rYK4sJJsDpUdFJaWZqhv=AkMqcG64EhsOCg1tDxVg@mail.gmail.com>
<CADJgMzvkBDBD9_=53kaD_6_jWH=vbWOnNwOKK5GOz8Du-F08dQ@mail.gmail.com>
<2081355.cHxjDEpgpW@crushinator>
<A30CC2E3-A769-445C-95A2-35B963EFC283@gmail.com>
<CAB+qUq7ZzLHrFZ5FQazrcALA-b-jFh_bf-XX1GaJbGY1KQB5YA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAOG=w-vkOzGXosc=C7NwX5_ewaT0Sdrkw49gfO+a9hohYctLaw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2015 02:00:11 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDreJ1PwZu3WgZdj_RR0W9JoQTF9w-Qwyfoh6uk1EM0ajg@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Consensus based block size retargeting algorithm
(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: Sat, 29 Aug 2015 00:00:14 -0000
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 1:38 AM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> It is in their individual interests when the larger block that is allowed
> for them grants them more fees.
I realize now that this is not what Greg Maxwell proposed (aka
flexcap): this is just miner's voting on block size but paying with
higher difficulty when they vote for bigger blocks.
As I said several times in other places, miners should not decide on
the consensus rule to limit mining centralization.
People keep talking about miners voting on the block size or
"softforking the size down if we went too far". But what if the
hashing majority is perfectly fine with the mining centralization at
that point in time?
Then a softfork won't be useful and we're talking about an "anti-miner
fork" (see https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/181/files#diff-e331b8631759a4ed6a4cfb4d10f473caR158
and https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/181/files#diff-e331b8631759a4ed6a4cfb4d10f473caR175
).
I believe miner's voting on the rule to limit mining centralization is
a terrible idea.
It sounds as bad as letting pharma companies write the regulations on
new drugs safety, letting big food chains deciding on minimum food
controls or car manufacturers deciding on indirect taxes for fuel.
That's why I dislike both this proposal and BIP100.
|
