1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
|
Return-Path: <hectorchu@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2B347AE
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 8 Aug 2015 15:24:02 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by labjt7 with SMTP id jt7so63863283lab.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
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: <BB479452-A490-4849-A7FE-8C5B9D837C93@petertodd.org>
References: <CAAO2FKEFA5ujJKe8F4-5Wnp0DCYuyHWNWhdtk5O=nCZ-zGu0rg@mail.gmail.com>
<3D142DE7-C785-46FB-A2D0-3DEF16892C64@petertodd.org>
<CAAO2FKHAimcD7r1etc-Wy__1KWppYp7_pLdowO77ACDPWnF2ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
<BB479452-A490-4849-A7FE-8C5B9D837C93@petertodd.org>
From: Hector Chu <hectorchu@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 16:23:41 +0100
Message-ID: <CAAO2FKH7q=JSPhLrffjxC1mGjaTaMXvX_LTGq1cmt0hSScBMXw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
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 <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: 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 <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:
> >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
<div dir=3D"ltr">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.<div>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.</div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><b=
r><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On 8 August 2015 at 16:10, Peter Todd <span di=
r=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:pete@petertodd.org" target=3D"_blank">pete@=
petertodd.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" st=
yle=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span=
class=3D"">-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----<br>
Hash: SHA256<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</span><span class=3D"">On 8 August 2015 11:03:04 GMT-04:00, Hector Chu <=
;<a href=3D"mailto:hectorchu@gmail.com">hectorchu@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<=
br>
>Thanks for this Peter. It is quite long winded and complicated so I<br>
>just<br>
>wanted to clarify one particular point. In John's proposal, are the=
<br>
>coins<br>
>actually locked up, or are they still freely spendable post-vote?<br>
>Otherwise<br>
>there is no real cost to casting votes. Locking coins up is related to<=
br>
>the<br>
>time-value of money and has a cost the longer they are locked up for.<b=
r>
<br>
</span>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.<br>
<br>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----<br>
<br>
iQE9BAEBCAAnIBxQZXRlciBUb2RkIDxwZXRlQHBldGVydG9kZC5vcmc+BQJVxhvv<br>
AAoJEMCF8hzn9Lnc47AH/1/4QjqSS2yYndM5evkl4h9ZJDxpeq++21pDprKn1HSu<br>
a5+0M8bcM1Jlk5+GSFqDLl920yQXTPZ5AOvJ9F6085/g2heGEg2iHP/iJsOGK6xe<br>
VWF/yR8sFYEe41BXP9r/la/AUFPcQWFUBqZgPqDBCqr87k2Hn5d3t0VITNwNHCge<br>
VJKlESGyyg3nMxfrvQq1YspKBkhTpIFMz1aw0CUh3kVOpmW2luFcA7SQzOWfBgDd<br>
3ZExFhcn/5GcK3GudRsvcPNSIZQzeZcX2uQHCzQa7kvPdlZ1XntkE2ojy31Zq0nv<br>
Pj+CDBeKYtr4R0ZEn2bKhq39C3+1SZa5XkuCHAanBbQ=3D<br>
=3Dvp56<br>
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
--001a11c3f0268fd07d051cce57cc--
|
