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
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <elombrozo@gmail.com>) id 1Z409j-0002pn-0v
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 14 Jun 2015 05:08:27 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.220.53 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.220.53; envelope-from=elombrozo@gmail.com;
helo=mail-pa0-f53.google.com;
Received: from mail-pa0-f53.google.com ([209.85.220.53])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Z409h-00006M-WA
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 14 Jun 2015 05:08:27 +0000
Received: by padev16 with SMTP id ev16so45133907pad.0
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sat, 13 Jun 2015 22:08:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.70.42.37 with SMTP id k5mr37097891pdl.13.1434258500366;
Sat, 13 Jun 2015 22:08:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.102] (cpe-76-167-237-202.san.res.rr.com.
[76.167.237.202])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id bs3sm8168529pbd.47.2015.06.13.22.08.18
(version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
Sat, 13 Jun 2015 22:08:19 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
boundary="Apple-Mail=_E2741506-8317-4BFA-9B92-1F238E2B6B65";
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5b6
From: Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFzgq-y5xBSXexVi0mJw_w89R2_AHJCgmj=gLN4CK_-YaO4-eg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 22:08:16 -0700
Message-Id: <3BB36FC7-9212-42A1-A756-A66929C15D4F@gmail.com>
References: <20150612181153.GB19199@muck>
<CAJN5wHVj=KfQ3_KYOKee9uq4LNPwQ7x5nGuKDHEMUqGF4LSDLg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAFzgq-y5xBSXexVi0mJw_w89R2_AHJCgmj=gLN4CK_-YaO4-eg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chun Wang <1240902@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098)
X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(elombrozo[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
0.2 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
X-Headers-End: 1Z409h-00006M-WA
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] User vote in blocksize through fees
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 05:08:27 -0000
--Apple-Mail=_E2741506-8317-4BFA-9B92-1F238E2B6B65
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=utf-8
Chun,
With all due respect, there are a couple major differences between BIP34 =
and BIP66 on the one hand and BIP100 on the other.
1) BIP34 and BIP66 are soft forks. Miners choosing to switch to them =
will not seriously impact validation rules for non-mining users that do =
not make the switch. With BIP66, the worst that can happen to them is =
noncompliant transactions will no longer be accepted by the =
network=E2=80=A6but even nodes that do not switch over will continue to =
remain synched with the network.
2) BIP100 has direct economic consequences=E2=80=A6and particularly for =
miners. It lends itself to much greater corruptibility.
- Eric Lombrozo
> On Jun 13, 2015, at 9:55 PM, Chun Wang <1240902@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> To tell you the truth. It is only because most miners are not located
> in the West. If Slush, Eligius and BTC Guild still on top 3, the core
> developers, including brain-dead Mike Hearn, would be very happy to do
> BIP100 just like they did BIP34 and BIP66. Shame on you!
>=20
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Danny Thorpe <danny.thorpe@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>> Please forgive my ignorance, but why should Bitcoin users have a say =
in
>> block size limits? It's the miners and Bitcoin node operators that =
bear the
>> burden of managing large blocks, no?
>>=20
>> Users voting on network parameters sounds like neighbors voting on =
how deep
>> my swimming pool should be.
>>=20
>> Thanks,
>> -Danny
>>=20
>> On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> =
wrote:
>>>=20
>>> Jeff Garzik recently proposed that the upper blocksize limit be =
removed
>>> entirely, with a "soft" limit being enforced via miner vote, =
recorded by
>>> hashing power.
>>>=20
>>> This mechanism within the protocol for users to have any influence =
over
>>> the miner vote. We can add that back by providing a way for =
transactions
>>> themselves to set a flag determining whether or not they can be =
included
>>> in a block casting a specific vote.
>>>=20
>>> We can simplify Garzik's vote to say that one of the nVersion bits
>>> either votes for the blocksize to be increased, or decreased, by =
some
>>> fixed ratio (e.g 2x or 1/2x) the next interval. Then we can use a
>>> nVersion bit in transactions themselves, also voting for an increase =
or
>>> decrease. Transactions may only be included in blocks with an
>>> indentical vote, thus providing miners with a monetary incentive via
>>> fees to vote according to user wishes.
>>>=20
>>> Of course, to cast a "don't care" vote we can either define an
>>> additional bit, or sign the transaction with both versions. Equally =
we
>>> can even have different versions with different fees, broadcast via =
a
>>> mechanism such as replace-by-fee.
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> See also John Dillon's proposal for proof-of-stake blocksize voting:
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> =
https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg=
02323.html
>>>=20
>>> --
>>> 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
>>> 0000000000000000127ab1d576dc851f374424f1269c4700ccaba2c42d97e778
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> =
--------------------------------------------------------------------------=
----
>>>=20
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>>> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> =
--------------------------------------------------------------------------=
----
>>=20
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>=20
>=20
> =
--------------------------------------------------------------------------=
----
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
--Apple-Mail=_E2741506-8317-4BFA-9B92-1F238E2B6B65
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename=signature.asc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org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=A+i3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--Apple-Mail=_E2741506-8317-4BFA-9B92-1F238E2B6B65--
|
