From: Benjamin <benjamin.l.cordes@gmail•com>
To: Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock•name>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] User vote in blocksize through fees
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 20:39:21 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAOoPuRaRMbY++Ys-D-k+Kb_oGLj9H8hKOty94Z2scU5u=jZsoQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3287607.HcH18TyfSu@crushinator>
This is a misguided idea, to say the least. If such a mechanism of of
user input would be possible, one would use it for transaction
verification in the first place. In proof-of-stake outcomes are
determined by vote by stake (that vote has very different
characteristics than vote by compute power). There is no such thing as
making it possible to determine what "users want". That's what the
proof-of-work mechanism does in the first place, only that it is now
unfortunately skewed/corrupted/(whatever you want to call it). Before
centralization the concept of "miners" didn't exist in Bitcoin and
miners were roughly identical to users. Peer-to-Peer implies only one
class of users.
A big problem with such a vote (in PoW and PoS): miners get paid for
their work and have incentives to raise fees. Those who pay fees would
have no say in whether those fees are fair or not. Transaction
verification has to be roughly profitable, but there is no fixed
formula for determining profitability.
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 8:26 PM, Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock•name> wrote:
> On Friday, 12 June 2015, at 11:20 am, Mark Friedenbach wrote:
>> Peter it's not clear to me that your described protocol is free of miner
>> influence over the vote, by artificially generating transactions which they
>> claim in their own blocks
>
> Miners could fill their blocks with garbage transactions that agree with their vote, but this wouldn't bring them any real income, as they'd be paying their own money as fees to themselves. To get real income, miners would have to vote in accordance with real users.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 8:34 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 02:22:36PM -0400, Matt Whitlock wrote:
>> Why should miners only be able to vote for "double the limit" or "halve" the limit? If you're going to use bits, I think you need to use two bits:
>>
>> 0 0 = no preference ("wildcard" vote)
>> 0 1 = vote for the limit to remain the same
>> 1 0 = vote for the limit to be halved
>> 1 1 = vote for the limit to be doubled
>>
>> User transactions would follow the same usage. In particular, a user vote of "0 0" (no preference) could be included in a block casting any vote, but a block voting "0 0" (no preference) could only contain transactions voting "0 0" as well.
>
> Sounds like a good encoding to me. Taking the median of the three
> options, and throwing away "don't care" votes entirely, makes sense.
>
>> Incidentally, I love this idea, as it addresses a concern I immediately had with Jeff's proposal, which is that it hands control exclusively to the miners. And your proposal here fixes that shortcoming in a economically powerful way: miners lose out on fees if they don't represent the wishes of the users.
>
> Thanks! I personally expect disaster to ensue with this kind of
> proposal, but I'm less concerned if the disaster is something users
> explicitly allowed to happen in a consensual way.
>
> --
> 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
> 0000000000000000127ab1d576dc851f374424f1269c4700ccaba2c42d97e778
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 8:36 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 02:26:20PM -0400, Matt Whitlock wrote:
>> On Friday, 12 June 2015, at 11:20 am, Mark Friedenbach wrote:
>> > Peter it's not clear to me that your described protocol is free of miner
>> > influence over the vote, by artificially generating transactions which they
>> > claim in their own blocks
>>
>> Miners could fill their blocks with garbage transactions that agree with their vote, but this wouldn't bring them any real income, as they'd be paying their own money as fees to themselves. To get real income, miners would have to vote in accordance with real users.
>
> Exactly. I very explicitly am proposing that we consider giving users a
> mechanism to pay for votes to give them a way to directly influence the
> outcome.
>
> --
> 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
> 0000000000000000127ab1d576dc851f374424f1269c4700ccaba2c42d97e778
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 8:36 PM, Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock•name> wrote:
> On Friday, 12 June 2015, at 7:34 pm, Peter Todd wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 02:22:36PM -0400, Matt Whitlock wrote:
>> > Why should miners only be able to vote for "double the limit" or "halve" the limit? If you're going to use bits, I think you need to use two bits:
>> >
>> > 0 0 = no preference ("wildcard" vote)
>> > 0 1 = vote for the limit to remain the same
>> > 1 0 = vote for the limit to be halved
>> > 1 1 = vote for the limit to be doubled
>> >
>> > User transactions would follow the same usage. In particular, a user vote of "0 0" (no preference) could be included in a block casting any vote, but a block voting "0 0" (no preference) could only contain transactions voting "0 0" as well.
>>
>> Sounds like a good encoding to me. Taking the median of the three
>> options, and throwing away "don't care" votes entirely, makes sense.
>
> I hope you mean the *plurality* of the three options after throwing away the "don't cares," not the *median*.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-06-12 18:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-06-12 18:11 Peter Todd
2015-06-12 18:20 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-06-12 18:26 ` Matt Whitlock
2015-06-12 18:36 ` Peter Todd
2015-06-12 18:56 ` Jannes Faber
[not found] ` <CABr1YTfowMqgDZoWhDXiM0Bd3dwhVo6++FOvLntGc2HkApEbGw@mail.gmail.com>
2015-06-12 20:04 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-06-12 23:01 ` Vincent Truong
2015-06-12 23:11 ` Luke Dashjr
2015-06-12 23:23 ` Aaron Gustafson
2015-06-12 18:22 ` Matt Whitlock
2015-06-12 18:34 ` Peter Todd
2015-06-12 18:36 ` Matt Whitlock
2015-06-12 18:39 ` Benjamin [this message]
2015-06-12 18:47 ` Peter Todd
2015-06-12 18:44 ` Peter Todd
2015-06-12 18:52 ` Matt Whitlock
2015-06-12 18:54 ` Matt Whitlock
2015-06-12 18:56 ` Aaron Gustafson
2015-06-13 22:20 ` Danny Thorpe
2015-06-13 22:24 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-06-14 4:55 ` Chun Wang
2015-06-14 4:59 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-06-14 5:08 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-06-14 5:13 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-06-14 5:20 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-06-14 5:36 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-06-14 10:06 ` Mats Henricson
2015-06-14 10:34 ` Benjamin
2015-06-14 15:07 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-06-14 21:59 ` odinn
2015-06-14 20:10 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-06-14 14:42 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-06-14 22:26 ` Mike Hearn
2015-06-15 3:59 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-06-14 4:16 ` Stephen
2015-06-14 4:50 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-06-14 4:56 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-06-14 7:19 ` Ashley Holman
2015-06-13 23:57 Raystonn
2015-06-14 4:28 ` odinn
2015-06-14 5:46 ` Aaron Voisine
2015-06-14 21:38 ` odinn
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAOoPuRaRMbY++Ys-D-k+Kb_oGLj9H8hKOty94Z2scU5u=jZsoQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=benjamin.l.cordes@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bip@mattwhitlock$(echo .)name \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox