From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <1240902@gmail.com>) id 1Z3zxa-0004uR-Ha for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 14 Jun 2015 04:55:54 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.212.181 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.181; envelope-from=1240902@gmail.com; helo=mail-wi0-f181.google.com; Received: from mail-wi0-f181.google.com ([209.85.212.181]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Z3zxZ-0006Pu-H6 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 14 Jun 2015 04:55:54 +0000 Received: by wigg3 with SMTP id g3so47314073wig.1 for ; Sat, 13 Jun 2015 21:55:47 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.84.6 with SMTP id u6mr20473945wiy.87.1434257747471; Sat, 13 Jun 2015 21:55:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.180.208.69 with HTTP; Sat, 13 Jun 2015 21:55:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20150612181153.GB19199@muck> Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 12:55:47 +0800 Message-ID: From: Chun Wang <1240902@gmail.com> To: Danny Thorpe Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-) 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 (1240902[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.2 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in digit (1240902[at]gmail.com) -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: 1Z3zxZ-0006Pu-H6 Cc: Bitcoin Dev 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: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 04:55:54 -0000 To tell you the truth. It is only because most miners are not located in the West. If Slush, Eligius and BTC Guild still on top 3, the core developers, including brain-dead Mike Hearn, would be very happy to do BIP100 just like they did BIP34 and BIP66. Shame on you! On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Danny Thorpe wrote: > Please forgive my ignorance, but why should Bitcoin users have a say in > block size limits? It's the miners and Bitcoin node operators that bear the > burden of managing large blocks, no? > > Users voting on network parameters sounds like neighbors voting on how deep > my swimming pool should be. > > Thanks, > -Danny > > On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Peter Todd wrote: >> >> 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. >> >> 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. >> >> 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. >> >> 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. >> >> >> See also John Dillon's proposal for proof-of-stake blocksize voting: >> >> >> https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg02323.html >> >> -- >> 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org >> 0000000000000000127ab1d576dc851f374424f1269c4700ccaba2c42d97e778 >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Bitcoin-development mailing list >> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >