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
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <pete@petertodd.org>) id 1Z3TpA-0005uH-LC
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 12 Jun 2015 18:37:04 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org
designates 62.13.148.161 as permitted sender)
client-ip=62.13.148.161; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org;
helo=outmail148161.authsmtp.com;
Received: from outmail148161.authsmtp.com ([62.13.148.161])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1Z3Tp9-00048f-GX for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 12 Jun 2015 18:37:04 +0000
Received: from mail-c237.authsmtp.com (mail-c237.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.237])
by punt15.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t5CIasxE082057;
Fri, 12 Jun 2015 19:36:54 +0100 (BST)
Received: from muck ([85.255.235.202]) (authenticated bits=128)
by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t5CIajPC077517
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO);
Fri, 12 Jun 2015 19:36:51 +0100 (BST)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 19:36:45 +0100
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name>
Message-ID: <20150612183645.GF19199@muck>
References: <20150612181153.GB19199@muck>
<CAOG=w-up7-wp2NnK52jeCLvcSWvbC-iT-YRDoA=10QhU=K14-g@mail.gmail.com>
<1466351.XXvDcu7nzO@crushinator>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="bO4vSxwwZtUjUWHo"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1466351.XXvDcu7nzO@crushinator>
X-Server-Quench: fdfa59d7-1131-11e5-9f74-002590a135d3
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
aQdMdwAUEkAaAgsB AmMbWl1eU1t7XGI7 Yw9PbwBYfEhNWhto
UEpWR1pVCwQmRRly f09EMmpycAJDeXk+ bE5gXj4NCBIrcE8p
RVNVFG4HeGZhPWUC WRZfcx5UcAFPdx8U a1N6AHBDAzANdhES
HhM4ODE3eDlSNilR RRkIIFQOdA42BTMm Dw4FAThnHEtNTSE0
JB89K0wRVFoRKEIv PltpV18VKHc8
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1024:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 85.255.235.202/587
X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own
anti-virus system.
X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
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 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
X-Headers-End: 1Z3Tp9-00048f-GX
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
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: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 18:37:04 -0000
--bO4vSxwwZtUjUWHo
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 02:26:20PM -0400, Matt Whitlock wrote:
> On Friday, 12 June 2015, at 11:20 am, Mark Friedenbach wrote:
> > Peter it's not clear to me that your described protocol is free of miner
> > influence over the vote, by artificially generating transactions which =
they
> > claim in their own blocks
>=20
> Miners could fill their blocks with garbage transactions that agree with =
their vote, but this wouldn't bring them any real income, as they'd be payi=
ng their own money as fees to themselves. To get real income, miners would =
have to vote in accordance with real users.
Exactly. I very explicitly am proposing that we consider giving users a
mechanism to pay for votes to give them a way to directly influence the
outcome.
--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
0000000000000000127ab1d576dc851f374424f1269c4700ccaba2c42d97e778
--bO4vSxwwZtUjUWHo
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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==
=v87y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--bO4vSxwwZtUjUWHo--
|
