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
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
|
Return-Path: <ctpacia@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6FDBDE5
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 28 Aug 2015 23:42:59 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-io0-f171.google.com (mail-io0-f171.google.com
[209.85.223.171])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1753411E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 28 Aug 2015 23:42:58 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by iods203 with SMTP id s203so109595984iod.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 28 Aug 2015 16:42:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:cc:content-type;
bh=ITLaW9b22ps+v5x4oLKKABlsI867E2m2VxVFdIcW1uA=;
b=UtVJgvX523E7m2Ee0mZlrPpzVoH0e9CKUG4bnKybfzqXBvFDAlTDkO0sel/UKxIxyd
LjkmIC/VY7OkY+dqW4IvinQOfspzIb6QUWbjyMvieey+0GTqulGAye71qKBDSDEjf3qG
fAN0MAkDNFcAUBKCFQMVyxKAyA7fp3+CFjdsmv4qJaYq8kN8MV0nWuZ9ZS3/46T1aCrz
CatMCqCqgrkexNiVW7LHaWDE4ZzwzOLbV671b4eWysVMnXE8BiQ0ELCzT4Unhw2MNqGM
k9UdrAVj/lyhWpInqHsE17bihqvHtoM9d4IjgfCtNHtvnZ7H/SySzlDk9PVzuu+pgZXg
rh9A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.137.208 with SMTP id t77mr15685860ioi.2.1440805377484;
Fri, 28 Aug 2015 16:42:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.36.144.196 with HTTP; Fri, 28 Aug 2015 16:42:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.36.144.196 with HTTP; Fri, 28 Aug 2015 16:42:57 -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: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 19:42:57 -0400
Message-ID: <CAB+qUq4LnTfxUBj4dm5us+L9VdgXDLYbXNuT3MK=d-Lqg8XSTQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Chris Pacia <ctpacia@gmail.com>
To: Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113ed538b7301f051e67a4f9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,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@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: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 23:42:59 -0000
--001a113ed538b7301f051e67a4f9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Aug 28, 2015 7:38 PM, "Mark Friedenbach" <mark@friedenbach.org> wrote:
>
> It is in their individual interests when the larger block that is allowed
for them grants them more fees.
And pay a difficulty penalty and lose full blocks because of it? Even if
fees are somehow high enough to compensate for the lost reward, it still
requires miners to collectively decide to raise the block size for it to
make sense individually. An individual vote will not raise the limit, but
it will cost the miner money.
>
> On Aug 28, 2015 4:35 PM, "Chris Pacia via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> When discussing this with Matt Whitlock earlier we basically concluded
the block size will never increase under this proposal do to a collective
action problem. If a miner votes for an increase and nobody else does, the
blocksize will not increase yet he will still have to pay the difficulty
penalty.
>>
>> It may be in everyone's collective interest to raise the block size but
not their individual interest.
>>
>> On Aug 28, 2015 6:24 PM, "Gavin via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> With this proposal, how much would it cost a miner to include an
'extra' 500-byte transaction if the average block size is 900K and it costs
the miner 20BTC in electricity/capital/etc to mine a block?
>>>
>>> If my understanding of the proposal is correct, it is:
>>>
>>> 500/900000 * 20 =3D 0.11111 BTC
>>>
>>> ... Or $2.50 at today's exchange rate.
>>>
>>> That seems excessive.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Gavin Andresen
>>>
>>>
>>> > On Aug 28, 2015, at 5:15 PM, Matt Whitlock via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > This is the best proposal I've seen yet. Allow me to summarize:
>>> >
>>> > =E2=80=A2 It addresses the problem, in Jeff Garzik's BIP 100, of mine=
rs
selling their block-size votes.
>>> > =E2=80=A2 It addresses the problem, in Gavin Andresen's BIP 101, of b=
lindly
trying to predict future market needs versus future technological
capacities.
>>> > =E2=80=A2 It avoids a large step discontinuity in the block-size limi=
t by
starting with a 1-MB limit.
>>> > =E2=80=A2 It throttles changes to =C2=B110% every 2016 blocks.
>>> > =E2=80=A2 It imposes a tangible cost (higher difficulty) on miners wh=
o vote
to raise the block-size limit.
>>> > =E2=80=A2 It avoids incentivizing miners to vote to lower the block-s=
ize
limit.
>>> >
>>> > However, this proposal currently fails to answer a very important
question:
>>> >
>>> > =E2=80=A2 What is the mechanism for activation of the new consensus r=
ule? It
is when a certain percentage of the blocks mined in a 2016-block
retargeting period contain valid block-size votes?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > https://github.com/btcdrak/bips/blob/bip-cbbsra/bip-cbbrsa.mediawiki
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> On Friday, 28 August 2015, at 9:28 pm, Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
>>> >> Pull request: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/187
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
--001a113ed538b7301f051e67a4f9
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<p dir=3D"ltr"><br>
On Aug 28, 2015 7:38 PM, "Mark Friedenbach" <<a href=3D"mailto=
:mark@friedenbach.org">mark@friedenbach.org</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> It is in their individual interests when the larger block that is allo=
wed for them grants them more fees.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">And pay a difficulty penalty and lose full blocks because of=
it? Even if fees are somehow high enough to compensate for the lost reward=
, it still requires miners to collectively decide to raise the block size f=
or it to make sense individually. An individual vote will not raise the lim=
it, but it will cost the miner money.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">><br>
> On Aug 28, 2015 4:35 PM, "Chris Pacia via bitcoin-dev" <<=
a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.l=
inuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> When discussing this with Matt Whitlock earlier we basically concl=
uded the block size will never increase under this proposal do to a collect=
ive action problem. If a miner votes for an increase and nobody else does, =
the blocksize will not increase yet he will still have to pay the difficult=
y penalty.<br>
>><br>
>> It may be in everyone's collective interest to raise the block=
size but not their individual interest.<br>
>><br>
>> On Aug 28, 2015 6:24 PM, "Gavin via bitcoin-dev" <<a =
href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.lin=
uxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> With this proposal, how much would it cost a miner to include =
an 'extra' 500-byte transaction if the average block size is 900K a=
nd it costs the miner 20BTC in electricity/capital/etc to mine a block?<br>
>>><br>
>>> If my understanding of the proposal is correct, it is:<br>
>>><br>
>>> 500/900000 * 20 =3D 0.11111 BTC<br>
>>><br>
>>> ... Or $2.50 at today's exchange rate.<br>
>>><br>
>>> That seems excessive.<br>
>>><br>
>>> --<br>
>>> Gavin Andresen<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> > On Aug 28, 2015, at 5:15 PM, Matt Whitlock via bitcoin-de=
v <<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@=
lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>>> ><br>
>>> > This is the best proposal I've seen yet. Allow me to =
summarize:<br>
>>> ><br>
>>> > =E2=80=A2 It addresses the problem, in Jeff Garzik's =
BIP 100, of miners selling their block-size votes.<br>
>>> > =E2=80=A2 It addresses the problem, in Gavin Andresen'=
;s BIP 101, of blindly trying to predict future market needs versus future =
technological capacities.<br>
>>> > =E2=80=A2 It avoids a large step discontinuity in the blo=
ck-size limit by starting with a 1-MB limit.<br>
>>> > =E2=80=A2 It throttles changes to =C2=B110% every 2016 bl=
ocks.<br>
>>> > =E2=80=A2 It imposes a tangible cost (higher difficulty) =
on miners who vote to raise the block-size limit.<br>
>>> > =E2=80=A2 It avoids incentivizing miners to vote to lower=
the block-size limit.<br>
>>> ><br>
>>> > However, this proposal currently fails to answer a very i=
mportant question:<br>
>>> ><br>
>>> > =E2=80=A2 What is the mechanism for activation of the new=
consensus rule? It is when a certain percentage of the blocks mined in a 2=
016-block retargeting period contain valid block-size votes?<br>
>>> ><br>
>>> ><br>
>>> > <a href=3D"https://github.com/btcdrak/bips/blob/bip-cbbsr=
a/bip-cbbrsa.mediawiki">https://github.com/btcdrak/bips/blob/bip-cbbsra/bip=
-cbbrsa.mediawiki</a><br>
>>> ><br>
>>> ><br>
>>> >> On Friday, 28 August 2015, at 9:28 pm, Btc Drak via b=
itcoin-dev wrote:<br>
>>> >> Pull request: <a href=3D"https://github.com/bitcoin/b=
ips/pull/187">https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/187</a><br>
>>> > _______________________________________________<br>
>>> > bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
>>> > <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
>>> > <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/list=
info/bitcoin-dev">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoi=
n-dev</a><br>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
>>> <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitco=
in-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
>>> <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/=
bitcoin-dev">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev=
</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
>> <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-d=
ev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
>> <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc=
oin-dev">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a>=
<br>
>><br>
</p>
--001a113ed538b7301f051e67a4f9--
|
