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
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <danny.thorpe@gmail.com>) id 1Z3tn1-0000Px-LZ
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 13 Jun 2015 22:20:35 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.192.173 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.192.173; envelope-from=danny.thorpe@gmail.com;
helo=mail-pd0-f173.google.com;
Received: from mail-pd0-f173.google.com ([209.85.192.173])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Z3tn0-0006EK-Ec
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 13 Jun 2015 22:20:35 +0000
Received: by pdjn11 with SMTP id n11so46022661pdj.0
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sat, 13 Jun 2015 15:20:28 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.66.147.4 with SMTP id tg4mr35433806pab.69.1434234028791;
Sat, 13 Jun 2015 15:20:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.70.13.133 with HTTP; Sat, 13 Jun 2015 15:20:28 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20150612181153.GB19199@muck>
References: <20150612181153.GB19199@muck>
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 15:20:28 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJN5wHVj=KfQ3_KYOKee9uq4LNPwQ7x5nGuKDHEMUqGF4LSDLg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Danny Thorpe <danny.thorpe@gmail.com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b6d8528cf9ce605186da1b1
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
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
(danny.thorpe[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
-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
X-Headers-End: 1Z3tn0-0006EK-Ec
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: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 22:20:35 -0000
--047d7b6d8528cf9ce605186da1b1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
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?
Users voting on network parameters sounds like neighbors voting on how deep
my swimming pool should be.
Thanks,
-Danny
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
>
> See also John Dillon's proposal for proof-of-stake blocksize voting:
>
>
> https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg02323.html
>
> --
> 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
> 0000000000000000127ab1d576dc851f374424f1269c4700ccaba2c42d97e778
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>
--047d7b6d8528cf9ce605186da1b1
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">Please forgive my ignorance, but why should Bitcoin users =
have a say in block size limits?=C2=A0 It's the miners and Bitcoin node=
operators that bear the burden of managing large blocks, no? =C2=A0<div><b=
r></div><div>Users voting on network parameters sounds like neighbors votin=
g on how deep my swimming pool should be.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,<=
/div><div>-Danny</div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gm=
ail_quote">On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Peter Todd <span dir=3D"ltr">&=
lt;<a href=3D"mailto:pete@petertodd.org" target=3D"_blank">pete@petertodd.o=
rg</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"marg=
in:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Jeff Garzik rece=
ntly proposed that the upper blocksize limit be removed<br>
entirely, with a "soft" limit being enforced via miner vote, reco=
rded by<br>
hashing power.<br>
<br>
This mechanism within the protocol for users to have any influence over<br>
the miner vote. We can add that back by providing a way for transactions<br=
>
themselves to set a flag determining whether or not they can be included<br=
>
in a block casting a specific vote.<br>
<br>
We can simplify Garzik's vote to say that one of the nVersion bits<br>
either votes for the blocksize to be increased, or decreased, by some<br>
fixed ratio (e.g 2x or 1/2x) the next interval. Then we can use a<br>
nVersion bit in transactions themselves, also voting for an increase or<br>
decrease. Transactions may only be included in blocks with an<br>
indentical vote, thus providing miners with a monetary incentive via<br>
fees to vote according to user wishes.<br>
<br>
Of course, to cast a "don't care" vote we can either define a=
n<br>
additional bit, or sign the transaction with both versions. Equally we<br>
can even have different versions with different fees, broadcast via a<br>
mechanism such as replace-by-fee.<br>
<br>
<br>
See also John Dillon's proposal for proof-of-stake blocksize voting:<br=
>
<br>
<a href=3D"https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourcefor=
ge.net/msg02323.html" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://www.mail=
-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg02323.html</a><br=
>
<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br>
--<br>
'peter'[:-1]@<a href=3D"http://petertodd.org" rel=3D"noreferrer" ta=
rget=3D"_blank">petertodd.org</a><br>
0000000000000000127ab1d576dc851f374424f1269c4700ccaba2c42d97e778<br>
</font></span><br>---------------------------------------------------------=
---------------------<br>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Bitcoin-development mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net">Bitcoin-develo=
pment@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development=
" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/=
listinfo/bitcoin-development</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
--047d7b6d8528cf9ce605186da1b1--
|
