From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <elombrozo@gmail.com>) id 1Z3zsg-0002MF-Fz for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 14 Jun 2015 04:50:50 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.192.181 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.192.181; envelope-from=elombrozo@gmail.com; helo=mail-pd0-f181.google.com; Received: from mail-pd0-f181.google.com ([209.85.192.181]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Z3zsf-0007jv-9R for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 14 Jun 2015 04:50:50 +0000 Received: by pdjm12 with SMTP id m12so49288331pdj.3 for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; Sat, 13 Jun 2015 21:50:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.136.101 with SMTP id pz5mr17978759pbb.15.1434257443604; Sat, 13 Jun 2015 21:50:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.102] (cpe-76-167-237-202.san.res.rr.com. [76.167.237.202]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id c16sm8136432pdl.61.2015.06.13.21.50.41 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 13 Jun 2015 21:50:42 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\)) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1B245B00-F31D-4FFF-9BD4-07A62E603D63"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5b6 From: Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <2B60EFC7-60C9-470A-9022-F6FA5566CF11@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 21:50:39 -0700 Message-Id: <A99C4EDC-8F2B-4B51-913A-BD72B90BF1A4@gmail.com> References: <20150612181153.GB19199@muck> <2B60EFC7-60C9-470A-9022-F6FA5566CF11@gmail.com> To: Stephen <stephencalebmorse@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098) X-Spam-Score: -1.1 (-) 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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (elombrozo[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 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 0.5 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address X-Headers-End: 1Z3zsf-0007jv-9R Cc: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net" <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: <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: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 04:50:50 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_1B245B00-F31D-4FFF-9BD4-07A62E603D63 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 What Stephen said is very much along the same lines of my earlier = critique. This voting mechanism would be all but unusable to most = endusers without some pretty elaborate tools=E2=80=A6and unless users = are willing to pay substantially higher fees than they=E2=80=99re = currently paying, their votes will not really count all that much. And = it=E2=80=99s not all that clear that most users would really be able to = make very rational economic decisions even having elaborate tools. More = likely, a small group would figure out ways to exploit this for their = own benefit - at everyone else=E2=80=99s expense. - Eric Lombrozo > On Jun 13, 2015, at 9:16 PM, Stephen <stephencalebmorse@gmail.com> = wrote: >=20 > While this idea is theoretically interesting because it involves many = stakeholders, rather than just miners, I think in practice this would = not work very well. Users don't want to worry about this kind of = technicality, they just want to be able to make a transaction and have = it be processed. >=20 > In addition, while this gives stakeholders some weight with the fees = they supply, these fees are marginal compared to the block size subsidy. = If this proposal were actually implemented, I think miners would vote = for whatever they think is best, and users would not contradict them = with their votes to ensure a fast confirmation time. Users are = incentivized to be in agreement with miners because the miners provide = them with the confirmations they need, but fees do not provide a great = incentive for miners to be in agreement with users, and likely won't for = some time. >=20 > Best, > Stephen >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >> On Jun 12, 2015, at 2:11 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote: >>=20 >> Jeff Garzik recently proposed that the upper blocksize limit be = removed >> entirely, with a "soft" limit being enforced via miner vote, recorded = by >> hashing power. >>=20 >> This mechanism within the protocol for users to have any influence = over >> the miner vote. We can add that back by providing a way for = transactions >> themselves to set a flag determining whether or not they can be = included >> in a block casting a specific vote. >>=20 >> We can simplify Garzik's vote to say that one of the nVersion bits >> either votes for the blocksize to be increased, or decreased, by some >> fixed ratio (e.g 2x or 1/2x) the next interval. Then we can use a >> nVersion bit in transactions themselves, also voting for an increase = or >> decrease. Transactions may only be included in blocks with an >> indentical vote, thus providing miners with a monetary incentive via >> fees to vote according to user wishes. >>=20 >> Of course, to cast a "don't care" vote we can either define an >> additional bit, or sign the transaction with both versions. Equally = we >> can even have different versions with different fees, broadcast via a >> mechanism such as replace-by-fee. >>=20 >>=20 >> See also John Dillon's proposal for proof-of-stake blocksize voting: >>=20 >> = https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg= 02323.html >>=20 >> -- >> 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org >> 0000000000000000127ab1d576dc851f374424f1269c4700ccaba2c42d97e778 >> = --------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---- >> _______________________________________________ >> Bitcoin-development mailing list >> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >=20 > = --------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---- > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development --Apple-Mail=_1B245B00-F31D-4FFF-9BD4-07A62E603D63 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJVfQgfAAoJEJNAI64YFENUCAwQAIdCv4X1+AHi3b7WetVCpasl 4Xgfwik9JFlTCb7Fm//ogvoBPdeH3WQtTQTCmJxBKtEdpiQcDFQcgIfa3z33HifY DtLVXUxmU0riTdaJEGK+RCiR7uT0u/Y0UhSsAuqFYJU+TdUP1/OGJPCOu2u19SLy q5Oz0OwpdzayyzgmkjjNeDJkh8AdFWaaNQkltTfofuUXLSPj8F8RLGhEqbHgBp/S eMZ2GMqyhBhTTLgsyq82qNX+cGOdrtqmAQnc7KdpykiQKeDUVHfzWvbxRY3i/WSt R82iMJGz+I3V0GwXzzM+Rkd3X7YIyak/lUFQQTRW06GxFtU0BjnEyTjNXAcuCfSR XaHhK9EWNAw+CuOQi0eZeigUr5aaJWA59qeMAYy+VZxEv18oX8reZUMRxpHgEUIZ lnHLeaWLLYOXg9uuYYCis7j3vcrT4n/ocNYCoOumU0rSU4kA8XyKVgnj8UDDHYJk hu7cUah6E2e/tUdz9A40siX8nBVRx0/ocecY6waJCVWqAZANc5NeRD8A80bqlTUG 4OgD+pNteinmaw3HEDAbpTBt/rXEOHNF1nF6G355cHRoUb+nPzeqpoK/MEo3DoUJ G7XX+3MgNf9KY6iMlwMDcoeZ2oomJlrESq8wk9VIxKAxsbvdf30FjexczKS+kW2i yuafT8YzEa/V1UsSo39e =/Hxu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_1B245B00-F31D-4FFF-9BD4-07A62E603D63--