public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Chris Pacia <ctpacia@gmail.com>
To: Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Consensus based block size retargeting algorithm (draft)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 19:42:57 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAB+qUq4LnTfxUBj4dm5us+L9VdgXDLYbXNuT3MK=d-Lqg8XSTQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOG=w-vkOzGXosc=C7NwX5_ewaT0Sdrkw49gfO+a9hohYctLaw@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3561 bytes --]

On Aug 28, 2015 7:38 PM, "Mark Friedenbach" <mark@friedenbach.org> wrote:
>
> It is in their individual interests when the larger block that is allowed
for them grants them more fees.

And pay a difficulty penalty and lose full blocks because of it? Even if
fees are somehow high enough to compensate for the lost reward, it still
requires miners to collectively decide to raise the block size for it to
make sense individually. An individual vote will not raise the limit, but
it will cost the miner money.

>
> On Aug 28, 2015 4:35 PM, "Chris Pacia via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> When discussing this with Matt Whitlock earlier we basically concluded
the block size will never increase under this proposal do to a collective
action problem. If a miner votes for an increase and nobody else does, the
blocksize will not increase yet he will still have to pay the difficulty
penalty.
>>
>> It may be in everyone's collective interest to raise the block size but
not their individual interest.
>>
>> On Aug 28, 2015 6:24 PM, "Gavin via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> With this proposal, how much would it cost a miner to include an
'extra' 500-byte transaction if the average block size is 900K and it costs
the miner 20BTC in electricity/capital/etc to mine a block?
>>>
>>> If my understanding of the proposal is correct, it is:
>>>
>>> 500/900000 * 20 = 0.11111 BTC
>>>
>>> ... Or $2.50 at today's exchange rate.
>>>
>>> That seems excessive.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Gavin Andresen
>>>
>>>
>>> > On Aug 28, 2015, at 5:15 PM, Matt Whitlock via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > This is the best proposal I've seen yet. Allow me to summarize:
>>> >
>>> > • It addresses the problem, in Jeff Garzik's BIP 100, of miners
selling their block-size votes.
>>> > • It addresses the problem, in Gavin Andresen's BIP 101, of blindly
trying to predict future market needs versus future technological
capacities.
>>> > • It avoids a large step discontinuity in the block-size limit by
starting with a 1-MB limit.
>>> > • It throttles changes to ±10% every 2016 blocks.
>>> > • It imposes a tangible cost (higher difficulty) on miners who vote
to raise the block-size limit.
>>> > • It avoids incentivizing miners to vote to lower the block-size
limit.
>>> >
>>> > However, this proposal currently fails to answer a very important
question:
>>> >
>>> > • What is the mechanism for activation of the new consensus rule? It
is when a certain percentage of the blocks mined in a 2016-block
retargeting period contain valid block-size votes?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > https://github.com/btcdrak/bips/blob/bip-cbbsra/bip-cbbrsa.mediawiki
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> On Friday, 28 August 2015, at 9:28 pm, Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
>>> >> Pull request: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/187
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5246 bytes --]

  parent reply	other threads:[~2015-08-28 23:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-08-21 22:22 [bitcoin-dev] Consensus based block size retargeting algorithm (draft) Btc Drak
2015-08-21 23:17 ` Paul Sztorc
2015-08-22  0:06 ` Ahmed Zsales
2015-08-28 20:28   ` Btc Drak
2015-08-28 21:15     ` Matt Whitlock
2015-08-28 22:24       ` Gavin
2015-08-28 23:35         ` Chris Pacia
2015-08-28 23:38           ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-08-28 23:42             ` Matt Whitlock
2015-08-28 23:42             ` Chris Pacia [this message]
2015-08-29  0:00             ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-29  0:29               ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-08-29 10:15                 ` Btc Drak
2015-08-29 17:51                   ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-08-29 19:13                     ` Natanael
2015-08-29 19:03                   ` jl2012
2015-08-29 20:41                   ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-30 17:13                     ` jl2012
2015-08-30 18:56                       ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-31 18:50                         ` jl2012
2015-08-28 23:46           ` Btc Drak
2015-08-29  9:15             ` Elliot Olds
2015-08-28 23:38         ` Btc Drak
2015-08-28 23:36       ` Btc Drak
2015-08-28 23:44         ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-29  9:38     ` jl2012

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='CAB+qUq4LnTfxUBj4dm5us+L9VdgXDLYbXNuT3MK=d-Lqg8XSTQ@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=ctpacia@gmail.com \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=mark@friedenbach.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox