From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E8E53DC6 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2015 23:42:06 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from resqmta-ch2-04v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-04v.sys.comcast.net [69.252.207.36]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 361EE11E for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2015 23:42:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from resomta-ch2-06v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.102]) by resqmta-ch2-04v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id APht1r0022D5gil01Pi5Gh; Fri, 28 Aug 2015 23:42:05 +0000 Received: from crushinator.localnet ([IPv6:2601:186:c000:825e:e9f4:8901:87c7:24a0]) by resomta-ch2-06v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id APi31r00S4eLRLv01Pi4lX; Fri, 28 Aug 2015 23:42:04 +0000 From: Matt Whitlock To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Mark Friedenbach , Chris Pacia Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 19:42:03 -0400 Message-ID: <12011991.1tUHVb58Dn@crushinator> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.0.5-gentoo; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20140121; t=1440805325; bh=iw220UHmet4eJ78fZCrSeqRgKmK01boKAJnCsdsTStI=; h=Received:Received:From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version: Content-Type; b=QuJYRbRvLHlZZcW324NLWGpn3/ASAeS6W27J9iUHCuFx4md3zo2r1LAa3fFyCo/B4 BEFOFlFChjjwte2LHfvtfsn8vLkNSsMwMwW46OHMs0yDp4OwWbuwwBsS72j1MypeFg PcdKl104dTvs5afg7zJbGMIhPdLKsAqBUCJSrtNY7KYM0FnCtIrDFr+WWiUlcJgl7J 5ImZsAWFjP+QyAibsrWhk4mfcnJbGNuPH/M7GZERQAFkRc1I3zu5kkn+GQYbkHUoqT qxx7uhixVEcs8cyD/CWIQRgwFW0LZmSICiZs+FDrET8dMs1R0NEFalwncrDhjaQLd6 Zbo6m+9fAfE3g== X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 23:42:07 -0000 But that's not what this proposal does. They have to pay the difficulty= penalty merely for a *chance* at later being able to mine larger block= s. Maybe this could be fixed by allowing miners to produce a larger-than-l= imit block *immediately* by paying a difficulty penalty. Then we can si= mply take the 80th-percentile block size in each 2016-block period as t= he nominal block-size limit in the next period. On Friday, 28 August 2015, at 4:38 pm, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev= wrote: > It is in their individual interests when the larger block that is all= owed > for them grants them more fees. >=20 > On Aug 28, 2015 4:35 PM, "Chris Pacia via bitcoin-dev" < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >=20 > > When discussing this with Matt Whitlock earlier we basically conclu= ded the > > block size will never increase under this proposal do to a collecti= ve > > action problem. If a miner votes for an increase and nobody else do= es, the > > blocksize will not increase yet he will still have to pay the diffi= culty > > 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 cost= s 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 blindly > >> 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 mine= rs who vote to > >> raise the block-size limit. > >> > =E2=80=A2 It avoids incentivizing miners to vote to lower the bl= ock-size limit. > >> > > >> > However, this proposal currently fails to answer a very importan= t > >> question: > >> > > >> > =E2=80=A2 What is the mechanism for activation of the new consen= sus rule? It is > >> when a certain percentage of the blocks mined in a 2016-block reta= rgeting > >> period contain valid block-size votes? > >> > > >> > > >> > https://github.com/btcdrak/bips/blob/bip-cbbsra/bip-cbbrsa.media= wiki > >> > > >> > > >> >> 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 > > > >