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 4EF04F84 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 2015 04:55:37 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from s47.web-hosting.com (s47.web-hosting.com [199.188.200.16]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EBC961CE for ; Thu, 3 Sep 2015 04:55:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:33453 helo=server47.web-hosting.com) by server47.web-hosting.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.85) (envelope-from ) id 1ZXMYh-000e3n-So; Thu, 03 Sep 2015 00:55:35 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2015 00:55:35 -0400 From: jl2012@xbt.hk To: Jeff Garzik In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: X-Sender: jl2012@xbt.hk User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.0.5 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server47.web-hosting.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lists.linuxfoundation.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - xbt.hk X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server47.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: jl2012@xbt.hk X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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 development mailing list Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] block size - pay with difficulty 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: Thu, 03 Sep 2015 04:55:37 -0000 Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev 於 2015-09-03 00:05 寫到: > Schemes proposing to pay with difficulty / hashpower to change block > size should be avoided. The miners incentive has always been fairly > straightforward - it is rational to deploy new hashpower as soon as > you can get it online. Introducing the concepts of (a) requiring > out-of-band collusion to change block size and/or (b) requiring miners > to have idle hashpower on hand to change block size are both > unrealistic and potentially corrosive. That potentially makes the > block size - and therefore fee market - too close, too sensitive to > the wild vagaries of the mining chip market. > > Pay-to-future-miner has neutral, forward looking incentives worth > researching. > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev Ref: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010723.html I explained here why pay with difficulty is bad for everyone: miners and users, and described the use of OP_CLTV for pay-to-future-miner However, a general problem of pay-to-increase-block-size scheme is it indirectly sets a minimal tx fee, which could be difficult and arbitrary, and is against competition