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
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <elombrozo@gmail.com>) id 1Z3zsg-0002MF-Fz
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 14 Jun 2015 04:50:50 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.192.181 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.192.181; envelope-from=elombrozo@gmail.com;
helo=mail-pd0-f181.google.com;
Received: from mail-pd0-f181.google.com ([209.85.192.181])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Z3zsf-0007jv-9R
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 14 Jun 2015 04:50:50 +0000
Received: by pdjm12 with SMTP id m12so49288331pdj.3
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sat, 13 Jun 2015 21:50:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.68.136.101 with SMTP id pz5mr17978759pbb.15.1434257443604;
Sat, 13 Jun 2015 21:50:43 -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 c16sm8136432pdl.61.2015.06.13.21.50.41
(version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
Sat, 13 Jun 2015 21:50:42 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
boundary="Apple-Mail=_1B245B00-F31D-4FFF-9BD4-07A62E603D63";
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5b6
From: Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <2B60EFC7-60C9-470A-9022-F6FA5566CF11@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 21:50:39 -0700
Message-Id: <A99C4EDC-8F2B-4B51-913A-BD72B90BF1A4@gmail.com>
References: <20150612181153.GB19199@muck>
<2B60EFC7-60C9-470A-9022-F6FA5566CF11@gmail.com>
To: Stephen <stephencalebmorse@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098)
X-Spam-Score: -1.1 (-)
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
-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
0.5 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
X-Headers-End: 1Z3zsf-0007jv-9R
Cc: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net"
<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: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 04:50:50 -0000
--Apple-Mail=_1B245B00-F31D-4FFF-9BD4-07A62E603D63
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=utf-8
What Stephen said is very much along the same lines of my earlier =
critique. This voting mechanism would be all but unusable to most =
endusers without some pretty elaborate tools=E2=80=A6and unless users =
are willing to pay substantially higher fees than they=E2=80=99re =
currently paying, their votes will not really count all that much. And =
it=E2=80=99s not all that clear that most users would really be able to =
make very rational economic decisions even having elaborate tools. More =
likely, a small group would figure out ways to exploit this for their =
own benefit - at everyone else=E2=80=99s expense.
- Eric Lombrozo
> On Jun 13, 2015, at 9:16 PM, Stephen <stephencalebmorse@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>=20
> While this idea is theoretically interesting because it involves many =
stakeholders, rather than just miners, I think in practice this would =
not work very well. Users don't want to worry about this kind of =
technicality, they just want to be able to make a transaction and have =
it be processed.
>=20
> In addition, while this gives stakeholders some weight with the fees =
they supply, these fees are marginal compared to the block size subsidy. =
If this proposal were actually implemented, I think miners would vote =
for whatever they think is best, and users would not contradict them =
with their votes to ensure a fast confirmation time. Users are =
incentivized to be in agreement with miners because the miners provide =
them with the confirmations they need, but fees do not provide a great =
incentive for miners to be in agreement with users, and likely won't for =
some time.
>=20
> Best,
> Stephen
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>> On Jun 12, 2015, at 2:11 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
>>=20
>> 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
>> =
--------------------------------------------------------------------------=
----
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>=20
> =
--------------------------------------------------------------------------=
----
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
--Apple-Mail=_1B245B00-F31D-4FFF-9BD4-07A62E603D63
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
iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJVfQgfAAoJEJNAI64YFENUCAwQAIdCv4X1+AHi3b7WetVCpasl
4Xgfwik9JFlTCb7Fm//ogvoBPdeH3WQtTQTCmJxBKtEdpiQcDFQcgIfa3z33HifY
DtLVXUxmU0riTdaJEGK+RCiR7uT0u/Y0UhSsAuqFYJU+TdUP1/OGJPCOu2u19SLy
q5Oz0OwpdzayyzgmkjjNeDJkh8AdFWaaNQkltTfofuUXLSPj8F8RLGhEqbHgBp/S
eMZ2GMqyhBhTTLgsyq82qNX+cGOdrtqmAQnc7KdpykiQKeDUVHfzWvbxRY3i/WSt
R82iMJGz+I3V0GwXzzM+Rkd3X7YIyak/lUFQQTRW06GxFtU0BjnEyTjNXAcuCfSR
XaHhK9EWNAw+CuOQi0eZeigUr5aaJWA59qeMAYy+VZxEv18oX8reZUMRxpHgEUIZ
lnHLeaWLLYOXg9uuYYCis7j3vcrT4n/ocNYCoOumU0rSU4kA8XyKVgnj8UDDHYJk
hu7cUah6E2e/tUdz9A40siX8nBVRx0/ocecY6waJCVWqAZANc5NeRD8A80bqlTUG
4OgD+pNteinmaw3HEDAbpTBt/rXEOHNF1nF6G355cHRoUb+nPzeqpoK/MEo3DoUJ
G7XX+3MgNf9KY6iMlwMDcoeZ2oomJlrESq8wk9VIxKAxsbvdf30FjexczKS+kW2i
yuafT8YzEa/V1UsSo39e
=/Hxu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--Apple-Mail=_1B245B00-F31D-4FFF-9BD4-07A62E603D63--
|
