path: root/1d/01ac872965a012d7fb2e9f9a33f692fb3a504b

Return-Path: <venzen@mail.bihthai.net>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED1CC9B
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue,  4 Aug 2015 09:23:56 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail.bihthai.net (unknown [5.255.87.165])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 91FB913D
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue,  4 Aug 2015 09:23:55 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [10.8.0.6] (unknown [10.8.0.6])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
	(No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: venzen)
	by mail.bihthai.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 451F220DD0;
	Tue,  4 Aug 2015 11:25:38 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <55C084A2.6050401@mail.bihthai.net>
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2015 16:23:46 +0700
From: Venzen Khaosan <venzen@mail.bihthai.net>
Reply-To: venzen@mail.bihthai.net
Organization: Bihthai Bai Mai
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
	rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: jl2012@xbt.hk, Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
References: <1c808715eac12f67cf9865dfd97c0a37@xbt.hk>
In-Reply-To: <1c808715eac12f67cf9865dfd97c0a37@xbt.hk>
OpenPGP: id=1CF07D66;
	url=pool.sks-keyservers.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE
	autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
	smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Wrapping up the block size debate with voting
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development 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: Tue, 04 Aug 2015 09:23:57 -0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

It is not scientific or sensible to go from proposal stage straight to
voting and then implementation stage.

The proposals you have diligently gathered, summarized and presented
in your document must go through testing, and scenario simulation with
published results, in order for objective evaluation to be made possible.

For that matter, even "running up against a capacity limit" has not
been simulated or tested. Additionally, (and looking the other way)
there is a lack of provision for scaling DOWN in the current proposals
- - hard to envision, yes - but what goes up will eventually come down.
A global credit contraction is not unlikely, nor is natural disaster,
and these scenarios have implications for usage, scale, degree of
decentralization and security.

CS is science, there is no reason for this generation not to apply
rigorous Computer Science to Bitcoin.

Venzen


On 08/04/2015 02:50 PM, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> As now we have some concrete proposals 
> (https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009808.html),
>
> 
I think we should wrap up the endless debate with voting by different
> stakeholder groups.
> 
> --------------------------------- Candidate proposals
> 
> Candidate proposals must be complete BIPs with reference
> implementation which are ready to merge immediately. They must
> first go through the usual peer review process and get approved by
> the developers in a technical standpoint, without political or
> philosophical considerations. Any fine tune of a candidate proposal
> may not become an independent candidate, unless it introduces some
> “real” difference. “No change” is also one of the voting options. 
> --------------------------------- Voter groups
> 
> There will be several voter groups and their votes will be counted 
> independently. (The time frames mentioned below are just for
> example.)
> 
> Miners: miners of blocks with timestamp between 1 to 30 Sept 2015
> are eligible to vote. One block one vote. Miners will cast their
> votes by signing with the bitcoin address in coinbase. If there are
> multiple coinbase outputs, the vote is discounted by output value /
> total coinbase output value. Many well-known pools are reusing
> addresses and they may not need to digitally sign their votes. In
> case there is any dispute, the digitally signed vote will be
> counted.
> 
> Bitcoin holders: People with bitcoin in the UTXO at block 372500
> (around early September) are eligible to vote. The total “balance”
> of each scriptPubKey is calculated and this is the weight of the
> vote. People will cast their votes by digital signature. Special
> output types: Multi-sig: vote must be signed according to the
> setting of the multi-sig. P2SH: the serialized script must be
> provided Publicly known private key: not eligible to vote 
> Non-standard script according to latest Bitcoin Core rules: not
> eligible to vote in general. May be judged case-by-case
> 
> Developers: People with certain amount of contribution in the past
> year in Bitcoin Core or other open sources wallet / alternative 
> implementations. One person one vote.
> 
> Exchanges: Centralized exchanges listed on Coindesk Bitcoin Index, 
> Winkdex, or NYSE Bitcoin index, with 30 days volume >100,000BTC
> are invited. This includes Bitfinex, BTC China, BitStamp, BTC-E,
> itBit, OKCoin, Huobi, Coinbase. Exchanges operated for at least 1
> year with 100,000BTC 30-day volume may also apply to be a voter in
> this category. One exchange one vote.
> 
> Merchants and service providers: This category includes all
> bitcoin accepting business that is not centralized fiat-currency
> exchange, e.g. virtual or physical stores, gambling sites, online
> wallet service, payment processors like Bitpay, decentralized
> exchange like Localbitcoin, ETF operators like Secondmarket Bitcoin
> Investment Trust. They must directly process bitcoin without
> relying on third party. They should process at least 100BTC in the
> last 30-days. One merchant one vote.
> 
> Full nodes operators: People operating full nodes for at least 168
> hours (1 week) in July 2015 are eligible to vote, determined by the
> log of Bitnodes. Time is set in the past to avoid manipulation. One
> IP address one vote. Vote must be sent from the node’s IP address.
> 
> -------------------- Voting system
> 
> Single transferable vote is applied. 
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote). Voters
> are required to rank their preference with “1”, “2”, “3”, etc, or
> use “N” to indicate rejection of a candidate. Vote counting starts
> with every voter’s first choice. The candidate with fewest votes is
> eliminated and those votes are transferred according to their
> second choice. This process repeats until only one candidate is 
> left, which is the most popular candidate. The result is presented
> as the approval rate: final votes for the most popular candidate /
> all valid votes
> 
> After the most popular candidate is determined, the whole counting 
> process is repeated by eliminating this candidate, which will find
> the approval rate for the second most popular candidate. The
> process repeats until all proposals are ranked with the approval
> rate calculated.
> 
> -------------------- Interpretation of results:
> 
> It is possible that a candidate with lower ranking to have higher 
> approval rate. However, ranking is more important than the
> approval rate, unless the difference in approval rate is really
> huge. 90% support would be excellent; 70% is good; 50% is marginal;
> <50% is failed.
> 
> -------------------- Technical issues:
> 
> Voting by the miners, developers, exchanges, and merchants are
> probably the easiest. We need a trusted person to verify the
> voters’ identity by email, website, or digital signature. The
> trusted person will collect votes and publish the named votes so
> anyone could verify the results.
> 
> For full nodes, we need a trusted person to setup a website as an 
> interface to vote. The votes with IP address will be published.
> 
> For bitcoin holders, the workload could be very high and we may
> need some automatic system to collect and count the votes. If
> people are worrying about reduced security due to exposed raw
> public key, they should move their bitcoin to a new address before
> voting.
> 
> Double voting: people are generally not allowed to change their
> mind after voting, especially for anonymous voters like bitcoin
> holders and solo miners. A double voting attempt from these classes
> will invalidate all related votes.
> 
> Multiple identity: People may have multiple roles in the Bitcoin 
> ecology. I believe they should be allowed to vote in all
> applicable categories since they are contributing more than other
> people.
> 
> _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing
> list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org 
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVwISfAAoJEGwAhlQc8H1mygAH/jxe3C5RjPlsSKfIg+CikEwi
kSttrZKr45s6EzayUqyBjBensgsgQCYKo3RLUq8lSpeJdZSmfu4qis09iZVJmKNX
klA/CTuiHTE8jGgwjAHNeeAI/ZQSFOYictzk4OVTSQWoMuB8Wq6S+QXCiUbulOGH
E/vHQz25ZNPX0+Z1Ypx26kSglBNzWJT1cdtyAvd3SDOTMuRVcH9y4aECSB+399Jt
BT2pBOYCJjrXfuU0lh26yph08UyIKSoToCJ4jxEtBzf4COYppsO0dzHeboYkwLMo
+ZuBhz5Bv9Fy5d6AcQtCUjBJE0dZvyAjf7Zc3U9X5ZXe5sAx/zC36O307YtneHI=
=f/pR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----