{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1azvhdrf9fu6n0tm7yez4j6zcxcedp2ct6nrcq3z74naqs7kgpk8s5t2krq","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1azvhdrf9fu6n0tm7yez4j6zcxcedp2ct6nrcq3z74naqs7kgpk8s5t2krq","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-06-14\n📝 Original message:Chun,\n\nWith all due respect, there are a couple major differences between BIP34 and BIP66 on the one hand and BIP100 on the other.\n\n1) BIP34 and BIP66 are soft forks. Miners choosing to switch to them will not seriously impact validation rules for non-mining users that do not make the switch. With BIP66, the worst that can happen to them is noncompliant transactions will no longer be accepted by the network…but even nodes that do not switch over will continue to remain synched with the network.\n\n2) BIP100 has direct economic consequences…and particularly for miners. It lends itself to much greater corruptibility.\n\n- Eric Lombrozo\n\n\u003e On Jun 13, 2015, at 9:55 PM, Chun Wang \u003c1240902 at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e To tell you the truth. It is only because most miners are not located\n\u003e in the West. If Slush, Eligius and BTC Guild still on top 3, the core\n\u003e developers, including brain-dead Mike Hearn, would be very happy to do\n\u003e BIP100 just like they did BIP34 and BIP66. Shame on you!\n\u003e \n\u003e On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Danny Thorpe \u003cdanny.thorpe at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e Please forgive my ignorance, but why should Bitcoin users have a say in\n\u003e\u003e block size limits?  It's the miners and Bitcoin node operators that bear the\n\u003e\u003e burden of managing large blocks, no?\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e Users voting on network parameters sounds like neighbors voting on how deep\n\u003e\u003e my swimming pool should be.\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e Thanks,\n\u003e\u003e -Danny\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Peter Todd \u003cpete at petertodd.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e Jeff Garzik recently proposed that the upper blocksize limit be removed\n\u003e\u003e\u003e entirely, with a \"soft\" limit being enforced via miner vote, recorded by\n\u003e\u003e\u003e hashing power.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e This mechanism within the protocol for users to have any influence over\n\u003e\u003e\u003e the miner vote. We can add that back by providing a way for transactions\n\u003e\u003e\u003e themselves to set a flag determining whether or not they can be included\n\u003e\u003e\u003e in a block casting a specific vote.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e We can simplify Garzik's vote to say that one of the nVersion bits\n\u003e\u003e\u003e either votes for the blocksize to be increased, or decreased, by some\n\u003e\u003e\u003e fixed ratio (e.g 2x or 1/2x) the next interval. Then we can use a\n\u003e\u003e\u003e nVersion bit in transactions themselves, also voting for an increase or\n\u003e\u003e\u003e decrease. Transactions may only be included in blocks with an\n\u003e\u003e\u003e indentical vote, thus providing miners with a monetary incentive via\n\u003e\u003e\u003e fees to vote according to user wishes.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e Of course, to cast a \"don't care\" vote we can either define an\n\u003e\u003e\u003e additional bit, or sign the transaction with both versions. Equally we\n\u003e\u003e\u003e can even have different versions with different fees, broadcast via a\n\u003e\u003e\u003e mechanism such as replace-by-fee.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e See also John Dillon's proposal for proof-of-stake blocksize voting:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg02323.html\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e --\n\u003e\u003e\u003e 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n\u003e\u003e\u003e 0000000000000000127ab1d576dc851f374424f1269c4700ccaba2c42d97e778\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e ------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Bitcoin-development mailing list\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\n\u003e\u003e\u003e https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e ------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e Bitcoin-development mailing list\n\u003e\u003e Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\n\u003e\u003e https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development\n\u003e\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 --------------\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/20150613/002c6401/attachment.sig\u003e"}