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
|
Return-Path: <btcdrak@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 22F0AE9C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 28 Aug 2015 23:47:05 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wi0-f181.google.com (mail-wi0-f181.google.com
[209.85.212.181])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 78A0011E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 28 Aug 2015 23:47:04 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wicfv10 with SMTP id fv10so19165883wic.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 28 Aug 2015 16:47:03 -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=qsLwsff2KHtQpxHgLJdfPsoVuGCpidMMzyfRg4bFB9A=;
b=p90i+V27bXA8DNDBR40a6UAfoTQyRX2pemr0pOR80iq9d/i2qz8u27EvA22N52ME4n
px6hOtSGTUEgYjhVj7iLu6m7D3fVJML4RRcn/ftpGQ1ay3UWolp9WTES3ZAPxi92BoYo
KY+xva59ksjsIZcZ4JHJkDpOmWdXIlVFJ0iC0ODRezwusE8nIobs94c7jlzGVYNXE+TS
S/jMoOeA64Pje2U049wl4qvAlkCeBqeuUT9+miXb4/f4xNEFo3ZDpuG30UlOwsE8saPD
2AfGWv/cauiTL+kXB0xD1fhDcp1RQeG13CwlrQYDU9YfPuiqypyfxsyQoqC0p0D7feXK
Xk/Q==
X-Received: by 10.181.12.20 with SMTP id em20mr7254949wid.28.1440805623310;
Fri, 28 Aug 2015 16:47:03 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.28.211.16 with HTTP; Fri, 28 Aug 2015 16:46:43 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAB+qUq7ZzLHrFZ5FQazrcALA-b-jFh_bf-XX1GaJbGY1KQB5YA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADJgMzvWKA79NHE2uFy1wb-zL3sjC5huspQcaDczxTqD_7gXOg@mail.gmail.com>
<CADr=VrQR6rYK4sJJsDpUdFJaWZqhv=AkMqcG64EhsOCg1tDxVg@mail.gmail.com>
<CADJgMzvkBDBD9_=53kaD_6_jWH=vbWOnNwOKK5GOz8Du-F08dQ@mail.gmail.com>
<2081355.cHxjDEpgpW@crushinator>
<A30CC2E3-A769-445C-95A2-35B963EFC283@gmail.com>
<CAB+qUq7ZzLHrFZ5FQazrcALA-b-jFh_bf-XX1GaJbGY1KQB5YA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2015 00:46:43 +0100
Message-ID: <CADJgMzv+JPr-JeYqZGnbFMn16iTfcCmj+JAo7_tX5qPbOOqPeQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chris Pacia <ctpacia@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM,
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: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Consensus based block size retargeting algorithm
(draft)
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: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 23:47:05 -0000
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 12:35 AM, Chris Pacia via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> When discussing this with Matt Whitlock earlier we basically concluded the
> block size will never increase under this proposal do to a collective action
> problem. If a miner votes for an increase and nobody else does, the
> blocksize will not increase yet he will still have to pay the difficulty
> penalty.
>
> It may be in everyone's collective interest to raise the block size but not
> their individual interest.
It is clear from recent events that miners are willing to collaborate
together for the greater good of their industry. Miners have also
publicly shown support for raising the blocksize collaboratively.
Obviously, as transaction volume grows they want to collect as many
transaction fees as possible so if there isnt enough space in blocks,
they're going to vote for increases because it's in their collective
financial interests. The proposal specifically encourages
collaboration and hinders antisocial behaviour, and it specifically
encourages the blocksize to be raised according to demand without
neutering the fee market.
|
