diff options
author | Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch> | 2017-01-02 23:33:16 +0100 |
---|---|---|
committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2017-01-02 22:32:22 +0000 |
commit | 5794a12abf30a6a10fa86b699ec368b925548790 (patch) | |
tree | 0573a206c3f8bf3a7740048ddfe5a2019b0a8155 | |
parent | 7d88fc5ad74ffdfbcb3abfd18451c25dd9821e01 (diff) | |
download | pi-bitcoindev-5794a12abf30a6a10fa86b699ec368b925548790.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-5794a12abf30a6a10fa86b699ec368b925548790.zip |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP - 'Block75' - New algorithm
-rw-r--r-- | e7/49acca2df4ec554f78504fb66f3ffb7a5bdad5 | 108 |
1 files changed, 108 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/e7/49acca2df4ec554f78504fb66f3ffb7a5bdad5 b/e7/49acca2df4ec554f78504fb66f3ffb7a5bdad5 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..c933c70e4 --- /dev/null +++ b/e7/49acca2df4ec554f78504fb66f3ffb7a5bdad5 @@ -0,0 +1,108 @@ +Return-Path: <tomz@freedommail.ch> +Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org + [172.17.192.35]) + by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ACCC79C + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Mon, 2 Jan 2017 22:32:22 +0000 (UTC) +X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 +Received: from mx-out01.mykolab.com (mx.kolabnow.com [95.128.36.1]) + by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C88E217B + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Mon, 2 Jan 2017 22:32:21 +0000 (UTC) +X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at kolabnow.com +X-Spam-Score: -2.9 +X-Spam-Level: +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW + autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 +Received: from mx03.mykolab.com (mx03.mykolab.com [10.20.7.101]) + by mx-out01.mykolab.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1485760201 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Mon, 2 Jan 2017 23:32:19 +0100 (CET) +From: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch> +To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2017 23:33:16 +0100 +Message-ID: <2491464.ujv6hLnuF3@cherry> +In-Reply-To: <CAGCNRJpBMEha+cqXbgL6z9Fk5aoDOJF8tHu+XhYmMtgmdY2osw@mail.gmail.com> +References: <CAGCNRJoN7u3yvzitH2KSmVty-p0tX9jxWLHPb8uO5CPZmxmoRg@mail.gmail.com> + <1944321.hguq3JoYe1@cherry> + <CAGCNRJpBMEha+cqXbgL6z9Fk5aoDOJF8tHu+XhYmMtgmdY2osw@mail.gmail.com> +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit +Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" +X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on + smtp1.linux-foundation.org +X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 03 Jan 2017 07:09:02 +0000 +Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP - 'Block75' - New algorithm +X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 +Precedence: list +List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe> +List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/> +List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help> +List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe> +X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2017 22:32:22 -0000 + +On Monday, 2 January 2017 16:05:58 CET t. khan wrote: +> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch> wrote: +> > If the input of your math is completely free and human created, how does +> > it follow that it was math that created it ? +> > Why do you want it math created anyway? +> +> The beauty of math is that everyone on the planet agrees how it works. +> Everything in Bitcoin is math, with the exception of the blocksize limit +> (1MB) which was a stop-gap solution at the time. + +In actual fact the block size *is* set by miners, not math. And always has +been. +In your proposal the max blocksize continues to be set by miners as a +secondary effect of them choosing the block size. + +Saying the max is actually math is painting an illusion that is rather thin +and easy to see through because every single usecase for your suggestion +starts with the choice of blocksize that a human makes. There is not really +any other input except some rather simple algorithm. + +> > A maximum is needed, yes. But does it have to be part of the protocol? +> > A simple policy which is set by node operators (reject block if greater +> > than +> > X bytes) will solve this just fine, no? +> +> No. That would be an epic disaster. There's no such thing as a "simple +> policy" when humans are involved. + +This is ignoring history where miners have successfully set policy on block +size for years now. + +> Obviously no one would agree on what X +> bytes would be and you'd have some nodes rejecting blocks that others +> already accepted. + +Not sure about your "obviously". I don't agree. In fact, there is plenty of +reason to think it does work. + +Miners have always been the ones to decide on the block size, and they have +always done this in a coordinated fashion. This is a natural consequence of +the rather elegant (economic) design of Bitcoin. + +* Miners earn more fee-based income when they produce bigger blocks. +* Miners take more risk of their blocks being orphaned with bigger blocks. +* Miners want to avoid emptying the memory pool every block as that removes +a total need for users to pay fees. +* Miners want to make sure the mempool does not become backlogged because +users that do not see their transactions confirmed will get disappointed and +find other means to do payments. Which hurts the price and in effect hurts +the miners income. + +This behaviour in block size means blocks will not get huge and they will +not stay small either, because there are reasons for both. And so the size +will be something in the middle. + +-- +Tom Zander +Blog: https://zander.github.io +Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel + |