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 13FD1C3C for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 20:37:54 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from outmail149075.authsmtp.net (outmail149075.authsmtp.net [62.13.149.75]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B7E22CE for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 20:37:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-c235.authsmtp.com (mail-c235.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.235]) by punt16.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t7PKbo16049080; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:37:50 +0100 (BST) Received: from muck ([50.58.157.74]) (authenticated bits=128) by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t7PKbjP8024175 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:37:48 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 13:37:44 -0700 From: Peter Todd To: Matt Whitlock Message-ID: <20150825203744.GB3464@muck> References: <20150825201643.GC11083@muck> <1489961.GhSFCGzPRJ@crushinator> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="K8nIJk4ghYZn606h" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1489961.GhSFCGzPRJ@crushinator> X-Server-Quench: 2670caae-4b69-11e5-b398-002590a15da7 X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR bgdMdAcUGUATAgsB AmMbWVVeU1p7XWo7 bgpPaA1DY09JQQJu T01BRU1TWkFvYWdT XH4WUht2dgJDNn9y YU9kEHJdW0QpJBco X0oGE2QbZGY1bX1N U0lQagNUcgZDfk5E bwQuUz1vNG8XDSg5 AwQ0PjZ0MThBHWx5 UwcEKFMZSEIPD3YX QBYeBzIrGUAJDw8y MxchK1hUNkIWOUZ6 ClozVBo9Og9aIQRG fQl+Kg5hbwARV2Ju RS9AVEACJVUA X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1023:706 X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255) X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 50.58.157.74/587 X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own anti-virus system. X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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, greg@xiph.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Dynamically Controlled Bitcoin Block Size Max Cap [BIP 1xx - 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: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 20:37:54 -0000 --K8nIJk4ghYZn606h Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 04:26:23PM -0400, Matt Whitlock wrote: > On Tuesday, 25 August 2015, at 1:16 pm, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > What would you think of an approach like John Dillon's proposal to > > explicitly give the economic majority of coin holders a vote for the max > > blocksize? Miners could still vote BIP100 style for what max they were > > willing to use, limited in turn by the vote of the economic majority. >=20 > What fraction of coin holders do you suppose will vote? And, of those, wh= at fraction have the technical knowledge to make an informed vote? It would= be like polling Toyota truck owners to see whether the 2017 Tacoma should = increase its engine's cylinder displacement by 10%. Ordinary users just are= n't going to be able to vote meaningfully, and most won't respond to the po= ll at all. Note that you can make the % of voters required adapt dyanmically to voter interest. Also, your example is rather misleading, as car buyers *do* make those kinds of decisions though various market mechanisms. Equally, you can make the same criticism of democracy in general. An interesting idea would be to design a voting mechanism such that only users with access to validating nodes be able to vote - a fundemental requirement for users to fully participate in Bitcoin's goverance. --=20 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 00000000000000000ba8add4a8edc1b0467e9e377da016834d2abff3fc8ce1fb --K8nIJk4ghYZn606h Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQGrBAEBCACVBQJV3NIWXhSAAAAAABUAQGJsb2NraGFzaEBiaXRjb2luLm9yZzAw MDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwYmE4YWRkNGE4ZWRjMWIwNDY3ZTllMzc3ZGEwMTY4MzRk MmFiZmYzZmM4Y2UxZmIvFIAAAAAAFQARcGthLWFkZHJlc3NAZ251cGcub3JncGV0 ZUBwZXRlcnRvZC5vcmcACgkQwIXyHOf0udySHwf7Bc4dPW99WgTSRywJXH1Fk4Wu wkma9+bZKzjg6WKzwQJDnzcgmXU7bCrHmjlubvnLPnt4YGCmerNP4Ft5IDfCkHEx W6zGimfuEzgIJTWcoM4ZCuuaQgP/qrkThkt9bKzUMoadT9d00HN+CKbn9L0EbDr/ Enfvq4TTnrY8c1w7TXrHjOUYk3L+teKU0oZjDv/ZGjgFgrwJCVBXPP49dzjtLPjl PjruBdTYIxIj2Wfe09gdLIwsk/XgZdx13MVqH5Et2pEgSZHPaG3ahHZtyWagr++T zUwRR4deEm/9bz+j94qKFBU63kL0prwZVp+b75rcTNwY3xPn7utzMkOZQaOa6Q== =C7J2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --K8nIJk4ghYZn606h--