From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <pete@petertodd.org>) id 1Yr9WP-0008OA-5L for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 09 May 2015 18:30:45 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org designates 62.13.148.109 as permitted sender) client-ip=62.13.148.109; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org; helo=outmail148109.authsmtp.co.uk; Received: from outmail148109.authsmtp.co.uk ([62.13.148.109]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1Yr9WN-0006b3-02 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 09 May 2015 18:30:45 +0000 Received: from mail-c237.authsmtp.com (mail-c237.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.237]) by punt18.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t49IUZu3052917; Sat, 9 May 2015 19:30:35 +0100 (BST) Received: from muck ([209.141.138.18]) (authenticated bits=128) by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t49IUVpR012412 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sat, 9 May 2015 19:30:34 +0100 (BST) Date: Sat, 9 May 2015 14:30:31 -0400 From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> To: Joel Joonatan Kaartinen <joel.kaartinen@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20150509183031.GG4948@muck> References: <16096345.A1MpJQQkRW@crushinator> <CAP63atbdFSw0rDeuwgtjsDYsXnKSHNN9=zedzip2MsZ0hSY59w@mail.gmail.com> <CAGKSKfW7fJB6n3B-OoyXOep7hAQqWGGDTiZCkpJ7vXxWRFgveA@mail.gmail.com> <20150508165144.GC27417@savin.petertodd.org> <CAGKSKfVf6h6icETjfg1joWneiTYob0CTxLDQK-7Pob3+dh_nKQ@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="6BvahUXLYAruDZOj" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <CAGKSKfVf6h6icETjfg1joWneiTYob0CTxLDQK-7Pob3+dh_nKQ@mail.gmail.com> X-Server-Quench: 7b4a7db4-f679-11e4-9f74-002590a135d3 X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR aAdMdgsUFVQNAgsB AmMbWl1eU117Wmc7 aQpYcwRZY1RPXA10 UUBWR1pVCwQmRRgI f3t4EntydgdCeXw+ bEBiWD5cDkArchIv RlMCE2oPeGZhPWQC WRZfcx5UcAFPdx8U a1N6AHBDAzANdhES HhM4ODE3eDlSNilR RRkIIFQOdA4zBDkk QAsPEX0mGVEIXSM6 Mx04J0VUAEFZLkU/ eQF5fHhQKAMfEm8W EVxLCzNYIF9p X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1024:706 X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255) X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 209.141.138.18/587 X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own anti-virus system. X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-) 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 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record X-Headers-End: 1Yr9WN-0006b3-02 Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposed alternatives to the 20MB step function 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: Sat, 09 May 2015 18:30:45 -0000 --6BvahUXLYAruDZOj Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, May 09, 2015 at 01:36:56AM +0300, Joel Joonatan Kaartinen wrote: > such a contract is a possibility, but why would big owners give an > exclusive right to such pools? It seems to me it'd make sense to offer > those for any miner as long as the get paid a little for it. Especially > when it's as simple as offering an incomplete transaction with the > appropriate SIGHASH flags. Like many things, the fact that they need to negotiate the right at all is a *huge* barrier to smaller mining operations, as well as being an attractive point of control for regulators. > a part of the reason I like this idea is because it will allow stakeholde= rs > a degree of influence on how large the fees are. At least from the surfac= e, > it looks like incentives are pretty well matched. They have an incentive = to > not let the fees drop too low so the network continues to be usable and > they also have an incentive to not raise them too high because it'll push > users into using other systems. Also, there'll be competition between > stakeholders, which should keep the fees reasonable. If you want to allow stakeholders influence you should look into John Dillo= n's proof-of-stake blocksize voting scheme: http://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg02= 323.html --=20 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 00000000000000000e7980aab9c096c46e7f34c43a661c5cb2ea71525ebb8af7 --6BvahUXLYAruDZOj Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQGrBAEBCACVBQJVTlJEXhSAAAAAABUAQGJsb2NraGFzaEBiaXRjb2luLm9yZzAw MDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwZTc5ODBhYWI5YzA5NmM0NmU3ZjM0YzQzYTY2MWM1Y2Iy ZWE3MTUyNWViYjhhZjcvFIAAAAAAFQARcGthLWFkZHJlc3NAZ251cGcub3JncGV0 ZUBwZXRlcnRvZC5vcmcACgkQwIXyHOf0udzzSAf/TW1MOmg6Vkr7itDwb/FiwZwb 8XWXMLmbCN3mapnQZ0Zg0ykU3RDJkZMDbk4EXKxRHg4A7sf8rRVS/orcH8ouyqcK uyEha2JcTXlt1wiszNYXRBOB4k2a77tNQNc6QPX56ffQPoClIQJTSEWlwqdxVw86 +Jcw8RRSTbGAlyNxwn2/GMthEDVXTrTQwwMrKEj4/rhy8+E4g1GrakUkOuuZJ+Vx S/SZ/AV4onyT165VF4mVyNyPDJ4/qEFvW2U2UVI/VzMIWYnlx5NMpZA0OAQykC8W roM+G/Rnqd1U+kt7ceEM44atVAJ5A9zkk0t2OjqdvqiU5CQf9mwdftWIEB/5rQ== =uHlD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --6BvahUXLYAruDZOj--