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
|
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 35243D46
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 28 Aug 2015 23:35:45 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-io0-f178.google.com (mail-io0-f178.google.com
[209.85.223.178])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6988D231
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 28 Aug 2015 23:35:44 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by ioed140 with SMTP id d140so21952690ioe.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 28 Aug 2015 16:35:43 -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=0YB1KwFrkvm1g7xY+l51eFYy1b1DSk9G5m5kMcsmIfw=;
b=fpCXryvbC6SSaJhxb628TWtnm7ZcjdcPx0a/cUo0A60zLnf6xZ0+Xs30ngQckbtXaF
IMUS44Ci0HLLgskdn0vZDvUZw5NKpcvBXUUrkPUsRaOx9Gd7F6KO+6mbxnJ3V79IQrQM
jndzj2ACebLTHFMwByAUeNYWU+3tA3rExqE13+49ShY5ytSYFMIugkCJD27XacHF+wdt
KbJ+YGCnpMmumGBg0uUP5DbwCQ41GXnHmpQg64ZeKqnGB3M3bFDgqmxuLreVc5vf9ney
lLLkmBhLCcvNRUb/4W3cM2Qmce7QoylaEUoVKqOOkiwsCqp+18V3jojIvkS9hb7baqYH
0MpQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.137.208 with SMTP id t77mr15672007ioi.2.1440804943815;
Fri, 28 Aug 2015 16:35:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.36.144.196 with HTTP; Fri, 28 Aug 2015 16:35:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.36.144.196 with HTTP; Fri, 28 Aug 2015 16:35:43 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <A30CC2E3-A769-445C-95A2-35B963EFC283@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>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 19:35:43 -0400
Message-ID: <CAB+qUq7ZzLHrFZ5FQazrcALA-b-jFh_bf-XX1GaJbGY1KQB5YA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Chris Pacia <ctpacia@gmail.com>
To: Gavin <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113ed538de0f39051e678a33
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 23:35:45 -0000
--001a113ed538de0f39051e678a33
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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 miners=
selling
> their block-size votes.
> > =E2=80=A2 It addresses the problem, in Gavin Andresen's BIP 101, of bli=
ndly
> trying to predict future market needs versus future technological
> capacities.
> > =E2=80=A2 It avoids a large step discontinuity in the block-size limit =
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 who =
vote to
> raise the block-size limit.
> > =E2=80=A2 It avoids incentivizing miners to vote to lower the block-siz=
e 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 rul=
e? 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
>
--001a113ed538de0f39051e678a33
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<p dir=3D"ltr">When discussing this with Matt Whitlock earlier we basically=
concluded the block size will never increase under this proposal do to a c=
ollective 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 dif=
ficulty penalty.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">It may be in everyone's collective interest to raise the=
block size but not their individual interest.</p>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Aug 28, 2015 6:24 PM, "Gavin via bitcoin=
-dev" <<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bit=
coin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br type=3D"attribution"><=
blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px=
#ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">With this proposal, how much would it cost a =
miner to include an 'extra' 500-byte transaction if the average blo=
ck size is 900K and 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-dev <<a href=
=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfo=
undation.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 m=
iners selling their block-size votes.<br>
> =E2=80=A2 It addresses the problem, in Gavin Andresen's BIP 101, o=
f blindly trying to predict future market needs versus future technological=
capacities.<br>
> =E2=80=A2 It avoids a large step discontinuity in the block-size limit=
by starting with a 1-MB limit.<br>
> =E2=80=A2 It throttles changes to =C2=B110% every 2016 blocks.<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-si=
ze limit.<br>
><br>
> However, this proposal currently fails to answer a very important ques=
tion:<br>
><br>
> =E2=80=A2 What is the mechanism for activation of the new consensus ru=
le? It is when a certain percentage of the blocks mined in a 2016-block ret=
argeting period contain valid block-size votes?<br>
><br>
><br>
> <a href=3D"https://github.com/btcdrak/bips/blob/bip-cbbsra/bip-cbbrsa.=
mediawiki" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">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 bitcoin-dev wr=
ote:<br>
>> Pull request: <a href=3D"https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/187"=
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">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@l=
ists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
> <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-=
dev" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org=
/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</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/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
--001a113ed538de0f39051e678a33--
|
