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 B0102E56 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 03:52:23 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-it0-f52.google.com (mail-it0-f52.google.com [209.85.214.52]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F9D62F1 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 03:52:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-it0-f52.google.com with SMTP id w14so11779541itc.3 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2018 19:52:23 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=voskuil-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=c07tPA/wJDgxdTO+Lz/J4Z1MY84/PEvrv6V+HFuO0PA=; b=tcnvK3TjdBS2/8owpRS3VM17wOOkgRdayA+pxv3Dj+0h45jNrQRoXUKwethuYe8dYm gQhYWyR+qS1KntlDJrUEcsJxOI1wnCjy41cKDK+oYfXi2mN8PC4AGxUGGD44O0vfnbFq zSHgN151SHICVwBl266BucGCW0D6mMK71AoJKexNeKt9+y8nSwa/VvuH1WaMZQBj4vwr AG4U8+egfeIuIak881QpJehc789WCh1/UcaDeNjqfw/KBAMI3nkxArdwPKL3t6yj7fy2 BFw6kSqxaNekb/pKCntZ1zOa7MekaKV7SdgsX7EaQ8bQsawiy3oXl15ooIS+67dg2uUv 2c+Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=c07tPA/wJDgxdTO+Lz/J4Z1MY84/PEvrv6V+HFuO0PA=; b=b49x7j/PJ4EsNOBCDaoIyPBtcTLDa9V4oM0kZWQ7/cz2pRbIyoK2dnkwJyIwEk6DtI +ZSJh5IYj8KSgQOg1EmUOr2hZMs1klKKOhPogKVyQC1XAcYryKU1ly2k1HvvpYB6PWAs Gzqfai5t9M1Zk5fnnNTnjHHgrOLQHbBsRsaNzI2xy3gZODM1DUeYY+PiXkU+1P8/7EdY wScvKUooAG/hhkMq8y/tMNihkUOkX1N6qB52aGArubEqGAzK0HwXBL9j5a4GQ0YSspc0 uzrh32u8EffvQ92sXKEEsiXYAJsoYhQNsmDIeyK4i3i4j/goz27rF4v7Dmx8wBCrraVP L66A== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytciFcbF7xEmde6i6asQBjbkntboUEm+oDN2h5cZLXFkgmN6GUtC JggSyBHrqzNd0hrkA32gE4P/8w== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x224kGJULPKFc8k3lUBW52s9x6/d2q6RIWpcyCAyc/x7IlLYDLOLHRM3dLcdOjedM8VVdfsc5Qw== X-Received: by 10.36.93.20 with SMTP id w20mr30036374ita.101.1517284342456; Mon, 29 Jan 2018 19:52:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2601:600:a080:16bb:58eb:3f80:3102:545c? ([2601:600:a080:16bb:58eb:3f80:3102:545c]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k204sm5134107iok.68.2018.01.29.19.52.20 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 29 Jan 2018 19:52:21 -0800 (PST) To: Gregory Maxwell References: <261a9388-64fe-a664-85f0-4b0e8ca9ec1e@voskuil.org> <7ecea1c8-bc60-223e-6e7b-48b390363794@voskuil.org> From: Eric Voskuil Message-ID: Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 19:52:21 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Aix30T8XGWYCbC3nTh9i9SLpRu5NoYGKb" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 03:56:36 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposal: rewarding fees to next block miner X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 03:52:23 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --Aix30T8XGWYCbC3nTh9i9SLpRu5NoYGKb Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="89pUml0FhomYRtu2Gx3K2XE2NBmg51IKO"; protected-headers="v1" From: Eric Voskuil To: Gregory Maxwell Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion , George Balch , Lucas Clemente Vella Message-ID: Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposal: rewarding fees to next block miner References: <261a9388-64fe-a664-85f0-4b0e8ca9ec1e@voskuil.org> <7ecea1c8-bc60-223e-6e7b-48b390363794@voskuil.org> In-Reply-To: --89pUml0FhomYRtu2Gx3K2XE2NBmg51IKO Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 01/29/2018 05:59 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 11:21 PM, Eric Voskuil wrote= : >> Block space created by a miner is property that belongs to the miner, = it >> can be sold or not sold. >=20 > That case would be stronger when there is no more subsidy, but we > collectively the uses of Bitcoin are currently paying miners around > $130k USD per block in the form of inflation for the job of honestly > complying with the Bitcoin protocol. The miner who creates a block owns the block, he/she has selected the transactions and directs the reward. The case for this could hardly be stronger. The fact that there is subsidy implies that *part* of the cost of creating the block is offset. But by not accepting the highest fee transactions the miner is still accepting a net loss by purchasing the space for himself. The hash power generated by the miner to create the block contributes to confirmation security to a greater degree than for which he has been rewarded. You seem to be implying that there is dishonesty involved in purchasing block space, or that it is somehow possible to earn reward while not complying with the protocol. There is no honest or dishonest compliance with a protocol, there is just compliance or non-compliance. > I don't think you can argue that they have any more right to do that > than any of us have a right to run software that invalidates their > coinbase outputs when they do; which would be the sort of retaliation > they might get targeted with. Everyone can do whatever they want with their own machines, and I haven't argued otherwise. As far as "rights" go, Bitcoin doesn't care. I'm not one who has regularly raised hard fork fears while at the same time threatening them. My objective is to dispel flawed reasoning, not to negotiate for the rights of some group over another. Some economic theories that get thrown around are baffling, this idea of "retaliation" among them. Presumably the objective is to reduce transaction confirmation costs. The theory would be that mining empty blocks or mining own transactions is "unfairly" increasing revenue to miners. Despite the incorrectness of this theory, the proposed cure attempts to reduce returns to miners. However the consequence of reducing returns to miners is simply a reduction of hash power (as the least efficient miners become insolvent). Miners will continue to earn the same rate of return on their capital as always. And the cost of transactions will remain the same... The presumed mechanism of the proposed retaliation is also baffling. A miner (or anyone) can always create transactions, pay fees, and send them out to the network. Given that we presume transactions without identity, it is not possible (or desirable) to detect the source of transactions. Maybe the assumption is that sending such transactions out to the network would not satisfy the miner's objective, since the fees cannot be "recovered". But this is the original flaw. Fees spent to one's self cannot be recovered either! So if a miner wants to blow money by filling up blocks with market fee transactions, they will be able to do so at the same cost no matter how one tries to "retaliate". e --89pUml0FhomYRtu2Gx3K2XE2NBmg51IKO-- --Aix30T8XGWYCbC3nTh9i9SLpRu5NoYGKb Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJab+v1AAoJEDzYwH8LXOFOEJYH/1vQJpqkj6jtvD6WSjifC8wq sTOuwbsCE3KCHQoVIlt68SKd1mVt5BFTxVftmqrWqMDACaq/ovEzan+o1S4MCMQX 8FL926rkqees6wHInEcVSiIyHQ/Oh9Dyh91RTqkdghfJWNPTfpoIieOZpCK7nweD Rmad55YnZfC3xrTQ7AddmJmpE4cefTseGNNL9JAL4xlFV0AYJhLLetKWnOp3GnVK wSVgAKNe39WNNmiu1sG8pwCZa73oXAnujGPsWNYhtfsgOH/PWnZ2kevt30XuJj1/ 3WCgdM8QukA8zHkKt0ljU+Mfp06sfFfcidCZR9hT49Y3kxA0muK7w7ZwY590Zmo= =TXsr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Aix30T8XGWYCbC3nTh9i9SLpRu5NoYGKb--