From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Z3TZV-0004d7-N8 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 18:20:53 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from mail-ie0-f173.google.com ([209.85.223.173]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Z3TZQ-00040k-WE for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 18:20:53 +0000 Received: by iebps5 with SMTP id ps5so29392716ieb.3 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 11:20:41 -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=dP434sRWCDEE30hv03k6NHq+HAimk91VrLb7lqa1CPQ=; b=M902PfQNTmwG9a+ULuF/RGgYo8xrc35D7EQbmV4LjRWfAyXVRyJf4mjc9EFTKxY9NQ XtAqGqAe7b81VQ/FOgOdk5UGA+KDN7EH/7Dcjy52FT0MrDFkOjgnVYjZ8Nl3jXqWgsoC TAgexNHcJspOaHfQ5YfSW4bsqUinRvVJMknFcXd62+tS38BKLTQYYF8A6UqJ7BPc3514 iC7ZjsUKBTjKBmMfm66/s3g+1EPw+1I0s8kucF+7p6G4CwFrucnZ9ek02ZbkzQfcFKz/ yOnZ4pGra5JG0fWnqX0xSaifYp1D2yDyBIa/oZmep7ZXzNP2wTbSPb5qNZG/1jSp5PYP tpeA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmE/Dv4DIVtam/AJZPf4bSgYoCm0mTPlADRSNBPgePVwsbAxcqH/Ms6tYPcZfadCdUCEvYi X-Received: by 10.50.142.9 with SMTP id rs9mr6009908igb.17.1434133241517; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 11:20:41 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.130.98 with HTTP; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 11:20:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [173.228.107.141] In-Reply-To: <20150612181153.GB19199@muck> References: <20150612181153.GB19199@muck> From: Mark Friedenbach Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 11:20:21 -0700 Message-ID: To: Peter Todd Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2ff1c6c02990518562a6a X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Headers-End: 1Z3TZQ-00040k-WE Cc: Bitcoin Development 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: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 18:20:53 -0000 --001a11c2ff1c6c02990518562a6a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Peter it's not clear to me that your described protocol is free of miner influence over the vote, by artificially generating transactions which they claim in their own blocks, or conforming incentives among voters by opting to be with the (slight) majority in order to minimize fees. Wouldn't it in fact be simpler to use the dynamic block size adjustment algorithm presented to the list a few weeks back, where the miner opts for a larger block by sacrificing fees? In that way the users "vote" for larger blocks by including sufficient fees to offset subsidy, but as it is an economic incentives miners gain nothing by inflating the fees in their own blocks. 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 > > --001a11c2ff1c6c02990518562a6a Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Peter it's not clear to me that your described pr= otocol is free of miner influence over the vote, by artificially generating= transactions which they claim in their own blocks, or conforming incentive= s among voters by opting to be with the (slight) majority in order to minim= ize fees.

Wouldn't it in fact be simpler to use the dynami= c block size adjustment algorithm presented to the list a few weeks back, w= here the miner opts for a larger block by sacrificing fees? In that way the= users "vote" for larger blocks by including sufficient fees to o= ffset subsidy, but as it is an economic incentives miners gain nothing by i= nflating the fees in their own blocks.
=
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Peter Todd= <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
Jeff Garzik recently 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


--001a11c2ff1c6c02990518562a6a--