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.tho...@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 <p...@petertodd.org > <mailto:p...@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 > > <https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg02323.html> > > -- > 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org <http://petertodd.org/> > 0000000000000000127ab1d576dc851f374424f1269c4700ccaba2c42d97e778 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > <mailto:Bitcoin-development@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@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
