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-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Z3Tzi-0001ex-Ch for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 18:47:58 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org designates 62.13.149.81 as permitted sender) client-ip=62.13.149.81; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org; helo=outmail149081.authsmtp.net; Received: from outmail149081.authsmtp.net ([62.13.149.81]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1Z3Tzh-000665-8l for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 18:47:58 +0000 Received: from mail-c235.authsmtp.com (mail-c235.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.235]) by punt18.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t5CIlmag032208; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 19:47:48 +0100 (BST) Received: from muck ([85.255.235.202]) (authenticated bits=128) by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t5CIlYKq007673 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 12 Jun 2015 19:47:41 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 19:47:34 +0100 From: Peter Todd To: Benjamin Message-ID: <20150612184734.GH19199@muck> References: <20150612181153.GB19199@muck> <23144512.HX7dfatEFr@crushinator> <20150612183421.GE19199@muck> <3287607.HcH18TyfSu@crushinator> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="HkMjoL2LAeBLhbFV" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Server-Quench: 846543cd-1133-11e5-b396-002590a15da7 X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR aQdMdwAUEkAaAgsB AmMbWl1eVFp7XWU7 Yw9PbwBYfEhNWhto UEpWR1pVCwQmRRly f0J3KVhydwJAf30+ ZERkXHQVVEB8cEJ+ ERpJFGwFZnphaTUa TRJbfgVJcANIexZF O1F6ACIKLwdSbGoL NQ4vNDcwO3BTJTpY RgYVKF8UXXNDIyUx XVgcGikiVUwDDy83 KBclMV8OEQ4NMl81 LFQhEVwVPgR6 X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1023:706 X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255) X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 85.255.235.202/587 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 -0.0 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address X-Headers-End: 1Z3Tzh-000665-8l Cc: Bitcoin Dev 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 18:47:58 -0000 --HkMjoL2LAeBLhbFV Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 08:39:21PM +0200, Benjamin wrote: > This is a misguided idea, to say the least. If such a mechanism of of > user input would be possible, one would use it for transaction > verification in the first place. In proof-of-stake outcomes are > determined by vote by stake (that vote has very different > characteristics than vote by compute power). There is no such thing as > making it possible to determine what "users want". That's what the > proof-of-work mechanism does in the first place, only that it is now > unfortunately skewed/corrupted/(whatever you want to call it). Before > centralization the concept of "miners" didn't exist in Bitcoin and > miners were roughly identical to users. Peer-to-Peer implies only one > class of users. >=20 > A big problem with such a vote (in PoW and PoS): miners get paid for > their work and have incentives to raise fees. Those who pay fees would > have no say in whether those fees are fair or not. Transaction > verification has to be roughly profitable, but there is no fixed > formula for determining profitability. Read John Dillon's proposal then, which via proof-of-stake explicitly approportions control of increases via % of Bitcoin owned. Anyway, representing everyone is never going to be easy, but at least this nVersion thing is very easy to implement. --=20 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 0000000000000000127ab1d576dc851f374424f1269c4700ccaba2c42d97e778 --HkMjoL2LAeBLhbFV Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQGrBAEBCACVBQJVeylDXhSAAAAAABUAQGJsb2NraGFzaEBiaXRjb2luLm9yZzAw MDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAxMjdhYjFkNTc2ZGM4NTFmMzc0NDI0ZjEyNjljNDcwMGNj YWJhMmM0MmQ5N2U3NzgvFIAAAAAAFQARcGthLWFkZHJlc3NAZ251cGcub3JncGV0 ZUBwZXRlcnRvZC5vcmcACgkQwIXyHOf0udy2rwgAkE4xQ3ZM/DjMBMcuC1n5pgyT 2GelsVTxRnqdnWicI3kMzT3Chb7Fef25G6OnXkI7e+L0AdaX5Jcnb6qim7tUc4B3 cLxKyPNg4SduFQrw/43hxsgUZKGc7QnATGpNnPL4KAcgJ48WxF+4ew98HhVQOM0d 2EgabwmZFEasza9u2F8nZiTYNzNUm6gamZtOlR+nr5fcntpYxGNJjAyMF7hK0fb8 gIosI1Hy+uYcoA0Pa+9dxOxZF/3is9vfmayC8KscQaDW1tNXeZ2RBZWD30IEnqSq FBZXaILhnRiA7XBkbusoipkymZvo52bK4Zpe47I2/zWkdtURVsOe1HROMUQsaw== =8qJS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --HkMjoL2LAeBLhbFV--