Re: [bitcoin-dev] block size - pay with difficulty

[Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1629 bytes --]

Thanks for the link.  I readily admit only having given pay-to-future-miner
a little bit of thought.  Not convinced it sets a minimal tx fee in all
cases.


On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 12:55 AM, <jl2012@xbt.hk> wrote:

> Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev 於 2015-09-03 00:05 寫到:
>
>> Schemes proposing to pay with difficulty / hashpower to change block
>> size should be avoided.  The miners incentive has always been fairly
>> straightforward - it is rational to deploy new hashpower as soon as
>> you can get it online.  Introducing the concepts of (a) requiring
>> out-of-band collusion to change block size and/or (b) requiring miners
>> to have idle hashpower on hand to change block size are both
>> unrealistic and potentially corrosive.  That potentially makes the
>> block size - and therefore fee market - too close, too sensitive to
>> the wild vagaries of the mining chip market.
>>
>> Pay-to-future-miner has neutral, forward looking incentives worth
>> researching.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>
> Ref:
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010723.html
>
> I explained here why pay with difficulty is bad for everyone: miners and
> users, and described the use of OP_CLTV for pay-to-future-miner
>
> However, a general problem of pay-to-increase-block-size scheme is it
> indirectly sets a minimal tx fee, which could be difficult and arbitrary,
> and is against competition
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2416 bytes --]