From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Z3tn1-0000Px-LZ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 13 Jun 2015 22:20:35 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.192.173 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.192.173; envelope-from=danny.thorpe@gmail.com; helo=mail-pd0-f173.google.com; Received: from mail-pd0-f173.google.com ([209.85.192.173]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Z3tn0-0006EK-Ec for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 13 Jun 2015 22:20:35 +0000 Received: by pdjn11 with SMTP id n11so46022661pdj.0 for ; Sat, 13 Jun 2015 15:20:28 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.66.147.4 with SMTP id tg4mr35433806pab.69.1434234028791; Sat, 13 Jun 2015 15:20:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.13.133 with HTTP; Sat, 13 Jun 2015 15:20:28 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20150612181153.GB19199@muck> References: <20150612181153.GB19199@muck> Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 15:20:28 -0700 Message-ID: From: Danny Thorpe To: Peter Todd Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b6d8528cf9ce605186da1b1 X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) 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 (danny.thorpe[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 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: 1Z3tn0-0006EK-Ec 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: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 22:20:35 -0000 --047d7b6d8528cf9ce605186da1b1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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 > > --047d7b6d8528cf9ce605186da1b1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Please forgive my ignorance, but why should Bitcoin users = have a say in block size limits?=C2=A0 It's the miners and Bitcoin node= operators that bear the burden of managing large blocks, no? =C2=A0
Users voting on network parameters sounds like neighbors votin= g on how deep my swimming pool should be.

Thanks,<= /div>
-Danny

On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Peter Todd &= lt;pete@petertodd.o= rg> wrote:
Jeff Garzik rece= ntly proposed that the upper blocksize limit be removed
entirely, with a "soft" limit being enforced via miner vote, reco= rded 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 a= n
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-develo= pment@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/= listinfo/bitcoin-development


--047d7b6d8528cf9ce605186da1b1--