From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YzzWj-00040a-VI for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 03 Jun 2015 03:39:38 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from mail-ig0-f169.google.com ([209.85.213.169]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YzzWi-0005XB-PO for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 03 Jun 2015 03:39:37 +0000 Received: by igbsb11 with SMTP id sb11so4968188igb.0 for ; Tue, 02 Jun 2015 20:39:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=uRjWE5s9tr2VlH7tgPei2vvwlLryr9e4nNBDtU5koSE=; b=lbJkYLApIW/+Jl47L+QMGigGfem1x+YZuBpvGwfDiNdMrX5nNFyVMUqTockbBz2rfq Tg3vx8S/FOG3cT5+TeHFqZZvNRvnJs9YnpSD4iRhVV+SZgm2upnqX8rP2qOBZCkXOGYs bvyIJlC5YIXHdftOTkCTzENVhYp1aie4D0ZHVPeJJfekVykxJYIX5noNixZdgS66DvUn 4W12wPmdxddBivKK3iLrcZJnaxQvYw5eJfTrNYw8l+RtMVCLHJT+/DetnZd1u+RKkDh3 nDLCbvyXLXdYY7kwWJDOqQIioZjwYw/9ZDOOstDM8BjkGZ/CCf7pL9EYIhARwlkRdsgr CoyQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlob+ZcD5yHM2Oh6Y1CogY6q6u84mgbUvzmjm+STqWcdKNTN8xCvkydjo5BeLHz3X3H9sAt MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.42.43.199 with SMTP id y7mr37869692ice.12.1433300897540; Tue, 02 Jun 2015 20:08:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.122.15 with HTTP; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 20:08:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [1.136.97.45] Received: by 10.36.122.15 with HTTP; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 20:08:17 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 13:08:17 +1000 Message-ID: From: Vincent Truong To: Stephen Morse Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec5196941dac8c30517945ef6 X-Spam-Score: 0.9 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -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 X-Headers-End: 1YzzWi-0005XB-PO Cc: bitcoin-development Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Max Block Size: Simple Voting Procedure 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: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 03:39:38 -0000 --bcaec5196941dac8c30517945ef6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Some changes: Votes need to be 100%, not 50.01%. That way small miners have a fair chance. A 50.01% vote means large miners call the shots. Users (people who make transactions) need to vote. A vote by a miner shouldn't count without user votes. Fee incentives should attract legitimate votes from miners. A cheating miner will be defeated by another miner who includes those votes, and take the fees. This lets wallet providers and exchanges cast votes (few wallets will implement prompts and will just auto vote, so if you don't agree, switch wallets. Vote with your wallet). ~Vince On Jun 3, 2015 12:34 PM, "Stephen Morse" wrote: > Pindar, > > yes and it's a good idea to separate the hard/soft fork upgrades. The >> point being here is that we're also establishing a process for the >> community to self-determine the way forward in a transparent and verifiable >> manner. >> >> What's not to like? :) >> >> I'll probably have some time on Sunday to help hack something up but I >> don't think this is that heavy a coding lift? What am I missing? >> > > As Matt mentioned, many members of the bitcoin community would be hesitant > about giving miners this much power. It essentially lets them vote to > change the rules of the system. But miners are not the only part of this > ecosystem, and they are not the only ones affected by the choice of block > size limit, so they probably shouldn't be the only ones with a vote. > Instead, we vote with the software we run, and all upgrade. > > So, while I think an idea like this has its merits, I would bet that it's > fairly unlikely to get enough support to be merged into bitcoin core. > > Best, > Stephen > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > > --bcaec5196941dac8c30517945ef6 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Some changes:

Votes need to be 100%, not 50.01%. That way small miners hav= e a fair chance. A 50.01% vote means large miners call the shots.

Users (people who make transactions) need to vote. A vote by= a miner shouldn't count without user votes. Fee incentives should attr= act legitimate votes from miners. A cheating miner will be defeated by anot= her miner who includes those votes, and take the fees.

This lets wallet providers and exchanges cast votes (few wal= lets will implement prompts and will just auto vote, so if you don't ag= ree, switch wallets. Vote with your wallet).

~Vince

On Jun 3, 2015 12:34 PM, "Stephen Morse&quo= t; <stephencalebmorse@gma= il.com> wrote:
Pindar,

yes and it's a good idea = to separate the hard/soft fork upgrades. The point being here is that we= 9;re also establishing a process for the community to self-determine the wa= y forward in a transparent and verifiable manner.=C2=A0

<= /div>
What's not to like? :)

I'll probably ha= ve some time on Sunday to help hack something up but I don't think this= is that heavy a coding lift? What am I missing?

As Matt mentioned, many members of the bitcoi= n community would be hesitant about giving miners this much power. It essen= tially lets them vote to change the rules of the system. But miners are not= the only part of this ecosystem, and they are not the only ones affected b= y the choice of block size limit, so they probably shouldn't be the onl= y ones with a vote. Instead, we vote with the software we run, and all upgr= ade.

So, while I think an idea like this has its m= erits, I would bet that it's fairly unlikely to get enough support to b= e merged into bitcoin core.=C2=A0

Best,
Stephen=


-----------------------------------------------------------------------= -------

_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-develo= pment@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de= velopment

--bcaec5196941dac8c30517945ef6--