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-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YLsPX-00043m-IS for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 11:58:23 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 74.125.82.48 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.48; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-wg0-f48.google.com; Received: from mail-wg0-f48.google.com ([74.125.82.48]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YLsPW-0008Jw-Am for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 11:58:23 +0000 Received: by mail-wg0-f48.google.com with SMTP id l18so6476146wgh.7 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 03:58:16 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.93.134 with SMTP id cu6mr6668787wjb.79.1423742296255; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 03:58:16 -0800 (PST) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.194.188.11 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 03:58:16 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20150212064719.GA6563@savin.petertodd.org> References: <20150212064719.GA6563@savin.petertodd.org> Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 12:58:16 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: iZuZcqLJ-RFQPc2uOkLhPGrb49U Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Peter Todd Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bb7092cd1f470050ee2d574 X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) 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 (mh.in.england[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 HTML_OBFUSCATE_05_10 BODY: Message is 5% to 10% HTML obfuscation 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 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 -0.0 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address X-Headers-End: 1YLsPW-0008Jw-Am Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] replace-by-fee v0.10.0rc4 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: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 11:58:23 -0000 --047d7bb7092cd1f470050ee2d574 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I know you will ignore this as usual, but the entire replace-by-fee folly is based on your fundamental misunderstanding of miner incentives. Miners are *not* incentivised to earn the most money in the next block possible. They are incentivised to maximise their return on investment. Making Bitcoin much less useful reduces demand for the bitcoins they are mining, reducing coinbase and fee income in future blocks. Quite possibly, to the point where those miners are then making a loss. Your "scorched earth" plan is aptly named, as it's guaranteed to make unconfirmed payments useless. If enough miners do it they will simply break Bitcoin to the point where it's no longer an interesting payments system for lots of people. Then miners who have equipment to pay off will be *really* screwed, not to mention payment processors and all the investors in them. I'm sure you can confuse a few miners into thinking your ideas are a super-duper way to maximise their income, and in the process might facilitate a pile of payment fraud. But they aren't. This one is about as sensible as your "let's never increase the block size" and "let's kill SPV clients" crusades - badly thought out and bad for Bitcoin. --047d7bb7092cd1f470050ee2d574 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I know you will ignore this as = usual, but the entire replace-by-fee folly is based on your fundamental mis= understanding of miner incentives.

Miners are not=C2=A0incentivised to ear= n the most money in the next block possible. They are incentivised to maxim= ise their return on investment. Making Bitcoin much less useful reduces dem= and for the bitcoins they are mining, reducing coinbase and fee income in f= uture blocks. Quite possibly, to the point where those miners are then maki= ng a loss.

Your "scorched earth" plan is aptly named, as it's g= uaranteed to make unconfirmed payments useless. If enough miners do it they= will simply break Bitcoin to the point where it's no longer an interes= ting payments system for lots of people. Then miners who have equipment to = pay off will be really=C2=A0screwed, not to mention payment processo= rs and all the investors in them.

I'm sure you can confuse a few miners into = thinking your ideas are a super-duper way to maximise their income, and in = the process might facilitate a pile of payment fraud. But they aren't. = This one is about as sensible as your "let's never increase the bl= ock size" =C2=A0and "let's kill SPV clients" crusades - = badly thought out and bad for Bitcoin.
--047d7bb7092cd1f470050ee2d574--