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 820A883D for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2015 00:29:44 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-io0-f195.google.com (mail-io0-f195.google.com [209.85.223.195]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC0B1134 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2015 00:29:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ioej130 with SMTP id j130so2503061ioe.0 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2015 17:29:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=1zhj1Hx7Ki85k1h2XpBqvgEA2zalyeRmS8+ZQqeY2Rc=; b=DcPyu+EBIn/1Ovm1x29I8qqHpvL+ekBmEP/Y9k/9zpDMLIYM8eeLhBJBh8fx6WypUd r42K5YugfYR9iopr/zuwuXUOGUM/hHEjpFdHQP4dEOY6Ks/jtTd0hRzBFwzptFQdfMxs He0/hjMuuXTBGtX9UzNgSd8lmv0SnCW5izNskvvIMoDFm3WQczvfiOGkVFaof9PXU9Y7 E4vWE2p2Ru0Q1ueilsC+cDEnc0qVwnx2yA8P2/+nEF1SFqiwBXH2i0pWKe4l7/W3YdJU tJw8SS0I3iW6shJPCd4FRsB4jfHs65qAe5L8FmnJhQ5+ptbsIHAI/VAhjuI5u/h5HWZK 7/EQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkgKxcbxPlpbDKzp3rpHC8US7HVTFJOAA0eVYOauAB7woDf8QeUQX62ZYR1Iv5f7d0tR5w7 X-Received: by 10.107.25.134 with SMTP id 128mr8454234ioz.159.1440808183141; Fri, 28 Aug 2015 17:29:43 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.135.104 with HTTP; Fri, 28 Aug 2015 17:29:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [173.228.107.141] In-Reply-To: References: <2081355.cHxjDEpgpW@crushinator> From: Mark Friedenbach Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 17:29:23 -0700 Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113fde88f22b2e051e684b8a X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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 Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Consensus based block size retargeting algorithm (draft) 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: Sat, 29 Aug 2015 00:29:44 -0000 --001a113fde88f22b2e051e684b8a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ah, then my mistake. It seemed so similar to an idea that was proposed before on this mailing list: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-May/008033.html that my mind just filled in the gaps. I concur -- having miners -- or any group -- vote on block size is not an intrinsically good thing. The the original proposal due to Greg Maxwell et al was not a mechanism for "voting" but rather a feedback control that made the maximum block size that which generated the most fees. On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n wrote: > On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 1:38 AM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > It is in their individual interests when the larger block that is allow= ed > > for them grants them more fees. > > I realize now that this is not what Greg Maxwell proposed (aka > flexcap): this is just miner's voting on block size but paying with > higher difficulty when they vote for bigger blocks. > As I said several times in other places, miners should not decide on > the consensus rule to limit mining centralization. > People keep talking about miners voting on the block size or > "softforking the size down if we went too far". But what if the > hashing majority is perfectly fine with the mining centralization at > that point in time? > Then a softfork won't be useful and we're talking about an "anti-miner > fork" (see > https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/181/files#diff-e331b8631759a4ed6a4cf= b4d10f473caR158 > and > https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/181/files#diff-e331b8631759a4ed6a4cf= b4d10f473caR175 > ). > > I believe miner's voting on the rule to limit mining centralization is > a terrible idea. > It sounds as bad as letting pharma companies write the regulations on > new drugs safety, letting big food chains deciding on minimum food > controls or car manufacturers deciding on indirect taxes for fuel. > That's why I dislike both this proposal and BIP100. > --001a113fde88f22b2e051e684b8a Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Ah, then my mistake. It seemed so similar to an idea = that was proposed before on this mailing list:

http://l= ists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-May/008033.html
=
that my mind just filled in the gaps. I concur -- having miners -= - or any group -- vote on block size is not an intrinsically good thing. Th= e the original proposal due to Greg Maxwell et al was not a mechanism for &= quot;voting" but rather a feedback control that made the maximum block= size that which generated the most fees.

On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Jorge Ti= m=C3=B3n <jtimon@jtimon.cc> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 1:38 AM, Mark Friedenbac= h via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@li= sts.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> It is in their individual interests when the larger block that is allo= wed
> for them grants them more fees.

I realize now that this is not what Greg Maxwell proposed (aka
flexcap): this is just miner's voting on block size but paying with
higher difficulty when they vote for bigger blocks.
As I said several times in other places, miners should not decide on
the consensus rule to limit mining centralization.
People keep talking about miners voting on the block size or
"softforking the size down if we went too far". But what if the hashing majority is perfectly fine with the mining centralization at
that point in time?
Then a softfork won't be useful and we're talking about an "an= ti-miner
fork" (see https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/181/files#diff-e331b8631759a4ed6a4= cfb4d10f473caR158
and=C2=A0 ht= tps://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/181/files#diff-e331b8631759a4ed6a4cfb4d1= 0f473caR175
).

I believe miner's voting on the rule to limit mining centralization is<= br> a terrible idea.
It sounds as bad as letting pharma companies write the regulations on
new drugs safety, letting big food chains deciding on minimum food
controls or car manufacturers deciding on indirect taxes for fuel.
That's why I dislike both this proposal and BIP100.

--001a113fde88f22b2e051e684b8a--