đź“… Original date posted:2015-06-13
📝 Original message:That’s exactly the problem with Bitcoin - it was supposed to be the case that users ARE the miners and node operators…but…alas…
> On Jun 13, 2015, at 3:20 PM, Danny Thorpe <danny.thorpe at 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?
>
> 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 at petertodd.org <mailto:pete at 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/[email protected]/msg02323.html <https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg02323.html>;
>
> --
> 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org <http://petertodd.org/>;
> 0000000000000000127ab1d576dc851f374424f1269c4700ccaba2c42d97e778
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net <mailto:Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net>
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>;
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150613/0b7a0b67/attachment.html>;
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150613/0b7a0b67/attachment.sig>;
Eric Lombrozo [ARCHIVE] /
npub1az…t2krq
2023-06-07 17:37:31
in reply to nevent1q…jjax
Author Public Key
npub1azvhdrf9fu6n0tm7yez4j6zcxcedp2ct6nrcq3z74naqs7kgpk8s5t2krqPublished at
2023-06-07 17:37:31Event JSON
{
"id": "41a41bffd0906556f05283f990c13de17a25ea8367724f1bbdf317360dbdb786",
"pubkey": "e899768d254f3537af7e26455968583632d0ab0bd4c780445eacfa087ac80d8f",
"created_at": 1686152251,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"8a807127e1ae5b585bcc8f3578413a7d3eb1bd30e75c19cd4a3a0a256adcb61c",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"e322b03f2f284070463f894b0c1499e580b83628cdf060feca2d91fe0f6a2c32",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"05208c76c935dd1274b15b261067b86262a0ebeef3ef6cd223b4a692feee2b8f"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-06-13\n📝 Original message:That’s exactly the problem with Bitcoin - it was supposed to be the case that users ARE the miners and node operators…but…alas…\n\n\u003e On Jun 13, 2015, at 3:20 PM, Danny Thorpe \u003cdanny.thorpe at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e 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?\n\u003e \n\u003e Users voting on network parameters sounds like neighbors voting on how deep my swimming pool should be.\n\u003e \n\u003e Thanks,\n\u003e -Danny\n\u003e \n\u003e On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Peter Todd \u003cpete at petertodd.org \u003cmailto:pete at petertodd.org\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e Jeff Garzik recently proposed that the upper blocksize limit be removed\n\u003e entirely, with a \"soft\" limit being enforced via miner vote, recorded by\n\u003e hashing power.\n\u003e \n\u003e This mechanism within the protocol for users to have any influence over\n\u003e the miner vote. We can add that back by providing a way for transactions\n\u003e themselves to set a flag determining whether or not they can be included\n\u003e in a block casting a specific vote.\n\u003e \n\u003e We can simplify Garzik's vote to say that one of the nVersion bits\n\u003e either votes for the blocksize to be increased, or decreased, by some\n\u003e fixed ratio (e.g 2x or 1/2x) the next interval. Then we can use a\n\u003e nVersion bit in transactions themselves, also voting for an increase or\n\u003e decrease. Transactions may only be included in blocks with an\n\u003e indentical vote, thus providing miners with a monetary incentive via\n\u003e fees to vote according to user wishes.\n\u003e \n\u003e Of course, to cast a \"don't care\" vote we can either define an\n\u003e additional bit, or sign the transaction with both versions. Equally we\n\u003e can even have different versions with different fees, broadcast via a\n\u003e mechanism such as replace-by-fee.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e See also John Dillon's proposal for proof-of-stake blocksize voting:\n\u003e \n\u003e https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg02323.html \u003chttps://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg02323.html\u003e\n\u003e \n\u003e --\n\u003e 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org \u003chttp://petertodd.org/\u003e\n\u003e 0000000000000000127ab1d576dc851f374424f1269c4700ccaba2c42d97e778\n\u003e \n\u003e ------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e \n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e Bitcoin-development mailing list\n\u003e Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net \u003cmailto:Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\u003e\n\u003e https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development \u003chttps://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development\u003e\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e ------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e Bitcoin-development mailing list\n\u003e Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\n\u003e https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development\n\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150613/0b7a0b67/attachment.html\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 842 bytes\nDesc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150613/0b7a0b67/attachment.sig\u003e",
"sig": "a2ddd9fcf66f047eb87b7b642ed8a302b4a81beb2333f020ebfa4116d4f8960f0a26217192d71c4592841e819812221ec014ea0600382049f8656c6c7d208f28"
}