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 725B3DBD for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 21:27:17 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ig0-f170.google.com (mail-ig0-f170.google.com [209.85.213.170]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 293E4ED for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 21:27:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ig0-f170.google.com with SMTP id to18so67640269igc.0 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 13:27:16 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=0euevp4whw9DjNyo7hjiQqj5jBohHELRfY7cxKOCxJY=; b=mNHwkqn8J1t7Essaic+B+ZHMuceR7NfK2eIlXvcevSJbb1HB0T3tM+wVxnQiSQU88d RkV6eS08aUs3zY0hLrwI6t2kz2OnkSK72dWYr8dOB7bgLvPZ8tCUWH/1UCfZk4Qvik5/ 7hBhb81mLaquNh4fq3VDJlM1ScN2TCtYnZw5ksYoOeGY+RWBL9v3Rtvp2rbiuW8IKKos MHY0B0zRU4vp8FxtBjhPDoCgO/gnJCnsW8npDJ1krvIyxbcfg5Kl2xdi6iwInfY9Aodk zHv1upgnnCW+i3NAtAoxrMq4US+yI7Au+O7MrMn1uHC7vPEhZQekxe3pM2zhJWmMizoG zS9g== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.51.17.39 with SMTP id gb7mr13400509igd.54.1450301235691; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 13:27:15 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.79.8.198 with HTTP; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 13:27:15 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 16:27:15 -0500 Message-ID: From: Jeff Garzik To: Pieter Wuille Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1134b41ef8881205270a918f X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,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 development mailing list Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Segregated Witness in the context of Scaling Bitcoin 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: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 21:27:17 -0000 --001a1134b41ef8881205270a918f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Pieter Wuille wrote: > On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 9:38 PM, Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > 4.3. Observations on new block economic model > > > > SW complicates block economics by creating two separate, supply limited > > resources. > > Not correct. I propose defining the virtual_block_size as base_size + > witness_size * 0.25, and limiting virtual_block_size to 1M. This > creates a single variable to optimize for. If accepted, miners are > incentived to maximize fee per virtual_block_size instead of per size. > It is correct. There are two separate sets of economic actors and levels of contention for each set of space. That is true regardless of the proposed miner selection algorithm. > > 5.4. Problem: More complex economic policy, new game theory, new > bidding > > structure risks. > > > > Splitting blocks into two pieces, each with separate and distinct > behaviors > > and resource values, creates two fee markets. > > I believe you have misunderstood the proposal in that case. > See above. There are two separate and distinct resource velocities and demand levels in reality. That creates two markets regardless of miner selection algorithm in the block maker. --001a1134b41ef8881205270a918f Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gm= ail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 9:38 PM, Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@li= sts.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 4.3.=C2=A0 Observations on new block economic model
>
> SW complicates block economics by creating two separate, supply limite= d
> resources.

Not correct. I propose defining the virtual_block_size as base_size = +
witness_size * 0.25, and limiting virtual_block_size to 1M. This
creates a single variable to optimize for. If accepted, miners are
incentived to maximize fee per virtual_block_size instead of per size.
<= /blockquote>

It is correct.=C2=A0 There are two separate= sets of economic actors and levels of contention for each set of space. = =C2=A0

That is true regardless of the proposed min= er selection algorithm.

=C2=A0
> 5.4.=C2=A0 Problem:=C2=A0 =C2=A0More= complex economic policy, new game theory, new bidding
> structure risks.
>
> Splitting blocks into two pieces, each with separate and distinct beha= viors
> and resource values, creates two fee markets.

I believe you have misunderstood the proposal in that case.

See above.=C2=A0 There are two separate and dis= tinct resource velocities and demand levels in reality.=C2=A0 That creates = two markets regardless of miner selection algorithm in the block maker.


--001a1134b41ef8881205270a918f--