Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2B347AE for ; Sat, 8 Aug 2015 15:24:03 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-la0-f47.google.com (mail-la0-f47.google.com [209.85.215.47]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DFE73F2 for ; Sat, 8 Aug 2015 15:24:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: by labjt7 with SMTP id jt7so63863283lab.0 for ; Sat, 08 Aug 2015 08:24:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=BfklwcBsD4udmnhKel8AOdwf0ocETg1ErowJXMn7OEo=; b=cwdCm6ae9/97beytcTIe7w+jw79CHygmZ9f8RMk0z8fcgfXoTEvrR1j9Dkwf07aScG ZsEM02OICljNbhoN3lm7wIZjzZN65lYozfg8IhDgKPg1UxjrHBCUfqDkM9RTVfJPTyVv BZs/ZtBbnaf5TPSLeeK0gbalS3yNmEJcw6xdYinHflsQp9eIEjYibqe5UotSoQUyKxTl pqKkt4hMqWz4FlpfK9VWug3EJn+GiEQR7GQZ7SueQZFX5aP4aGnXkjsrmQL/riDWtYWN dflXiuvGW5BziuZn8o+Hb4d5L4ZcmB8sQELRDTFc6b/7PNqacJ5ax+JnRUWg27bRU2xO kV+Q== X-Received: by 10.112.77.103 with SMTP id r7mr12896537lbw.63.1439047441434; Sat, 08 Aug 2015 08:24:01 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.25.22.25 with HTTP; Sat, 8 Aug 2015 08:23:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <3D142DE7-C785-46FB-A2D0-3DEF16892C64@petertodd.org> From: Hector Chu Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 16:23:41 +0100 Message-ID: To: Peter Todd Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3f0268fd07d051cce57cc X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,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: Hector Chu via bitcoin-dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Voting by locking coins 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, 08 Aug 2015 15:24:03 -0000 --001a11c3f0268fd07d051cce57cc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I think that if a vote was free, no matter how much weight it carried, then it could be easily bought and the vote manipulated. If the cost of the vote was proportional to its weight, then it would be harder to manipulate the vote. I know I haven't explained that thoroughly, but as an analogy think to how markets determine the clearing price for a good. Votes in markets cost money. On 8 August 2015 at 16:10, Peter Todd wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > > > On 8 August 2015 11:03:04 GMT-04:00, Hector Chu > wrote: > >Thanks for this Peter. It is quite long winded and complicated so I > >just > >wanted to clarify one particular point. In John's proposal, are the > >coins > >actually locked up, or are they still freely spendable post-vote? > >Otherwise > >there is no real cost to casting votes. Locking coins up is related to > >the > >time-value of money and has a cost the longer they are locked up for. > > John Dillon's proposal is essentially to have the economic majority give > miners *permission* to raise the blocksize; making the vote costly is > against the design intent of accurately capturing the broadest possible > economic consensus. > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > iQE9BAEBCAAnIBxQZXRlciBUb2RkIDxwZXRlQHBldGVydG9kZC5vcmc+BQJVxhvv > AAoJEMCF8hzn9Lnc47AH/1/4QjqSS2yYndM5evkl4h9ZJDxpeq++21pDprKn1HSu > a5+0M8bcM1Jlk5+GSFqDLl920yQXTPZ5AOvJ9F6085/g2heGEg2iHP/iJsOGK6xe > VWF/yR8sFYEe41BXP9r/la/AUFPcQWFUBqZgPqDBCqr87k2Hn5d3t0VITNwNHCge > VJKlESGyyg3nMxfrvQq1YspKBkhTpIFMz1aw0CUh3kVOpmW2luFcA7SQzOWfBgDd > 3ZExFhcn/5GcK3GudRsvcPNSIZQzeZcX2uQHCzQa7kvPdlZ1XntkE2ojy31Zq0nv > Pj+CDBeKYtr4R0ZEn2bKhq39C3+1SZa5XkuCHAanBbQ= > =vp56 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > --001a11c3f0268fd07d051cce57cc Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I think that if a vote was free, no matter how much weight= it carried, then it could be easily bought and the vote manipulated. If th= e cost of the vote was proportional to its weight, then it would be harder = to manipulate the vote.
I know I haven't explained that thoroughly,= but as an analogy think to how markets determine the clearing price for a = good. Votes in markets cost money.
On 8 August 2015 at 16:10, Peter Todd <pete@= petertodd.org> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256



On 8 August 2015 11:03:04 GMT-04:00, Hector Chu <= ;hectorchu@gmail.com> wrote:<= br> >Thanks for this Peter. It is quite long winded and complicated so I
>just
>wanted to clarify one particular point. In John's proposal, are the=
>coins
>actually locked up, or are they still freely spendable post-vote?
>Otherwise
>there is no real cost to casting votes. Locking coins up is related to<= br> >the
>time-value of money and has a cost the longer they are locked up for.
John Dillon's proposal is essentially to have the economic major= ity give miners *permission* to raise the blocksize; making the vote costly= is against the design intent of accurately capturing the broadest possible= economic consensus.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQE9BAEBCAAnIBxQZXRlciBUb2RkIDxwZXRlQHBldGVydG9kZC5vcmc+BQJVxhvv
AAoJEMCF8hzn9Lnc47AH/1/4QjqSS2yYndM5evkl4h9ZJDxpeq++21pDprKn1HSu
a5+0M8bcM1Jlk5+GSFqDLl920yQXTPZ5AOvJ9F6085/g2heGEg2iHP/iJsOGK6xe
VWF/yR8sFYEe41BXP9r/la/AUFPcQWFUBqZgPqDBCqr87k2Hn5d3t0VITNwNHCge
VJKlESGyyg3nMxfrvQq1YspKBkhTpIFMz1aw0CUh3kVOpmW2luFcA7SQzOWfBgDd
3ZExFhcn/5GcK3GudRsvcPNSIZQzeZcX2uQHCzQa7kvPdlZ1XntkE2ojy31Zq0nv
Pj+CDBeKYtr4R0ZEn2bKhq39C3+1SZa5XkuCHAanBbQ=3D
=3Dvp56
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--001a11c3f0268fd07d051cce57cc--