From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Z3Tew-0005QX-LG for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 18:26:30 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from resqmta-po-07v.sys.comcast.net ([96.114.154.166]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Z3Teu-0005JE-UU for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 18:26:30 +0000 Received: from resomta-po-08v.sys.comcast.net ([96.114.154.232]) by resqmta-po-07v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id fWSC1q002516pyw01WSP0f; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 18:26:23 +0000 Received: from crushinator.localnet ([IPv6:2601:186:c000:825e:e9f4:8901:87c7:24a0]) by resomta-po-08v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id fWSL1q0144eLRLv01WSMvo; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 18:26:21 +0000 From: Matt Whitlock To: Mark Friedenbach Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 14:26:20 -0400 Message-ID: <1466351.XXvDcu7nzO@crushinator> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.9 (Linux/3.18.12-gentoo; KDE/4.14.9; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <20150612181153.GB19199@muck> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [96.114.154.166 listed in list.dnswl.org] 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 X-Headers-End: 1Z3Teu-0005JE-UU 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: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 18:26:30 -0000 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 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 paying their own money as fees to themselves. To get real income, miners would have to vote in accordance with real users.