rich1.0npub1r3san9v5njl6798hvauyu9ntm6r9c7u8s0t65wls58gpfdcvqp5sa48d0uhttps://nostr.ae/npub1r3san9v5njl6798hvauyu9ntm6r9c7u8s0t65wls58gpfdcvqp5sa48d0unjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-08-28 📝 Original message:Ah, then my mistake. It seemed so similar to an idea that was proposed before on this mailing list: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-May/008033.html that my mind just filled in the gaps. I concur -- having miners -- or any group -- vote on block size is not an intrinsically good thing. The the original proposal due to Greg Maxwell et al was not a mechanism for "voting" but rather a feedback control that made the maximum block size that which generated the most fees. On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Jorge Timón <jtimon at jtimon.cc> wrote: > On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 1:38 AM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev > <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > It is in their individual interests when the larger block that is allowed > > for them grants them more fees. > > I realize now that this is not what Greg Maxwell proposed (aka > flexcap): this is just miner's voting on block size but paying with > higher difficulty when they vote for bigger blocks. > As I said several times in other places, miners should not decide on > the consensus rule to limit mining centralization. > People keep talking about miners voting on the block size or > "softforking the size down if we went too far". But what if the > hashing majority is perfectly fine with the mining centralization at > that point in time? > Then a softfork won't be useful and we're talking about an "anti-miner > fork" (see > https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/181/files#diff-e331b8631759a4ed6a4cfb4d10f473caR158 > and > https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/181/files#diff-e331b8631759a4ed6a4cfb4d10f473caR175 > ). > > I believe miner's voting on the rule to limit mining centralization is > a terrible idea. > It sounds as bad as letting pharma companies write the regulations on > new drugs safety, letting big food chains deciding on minimum food > controls or car manufacturers deciding on indirect taxes for fuel. > That's why I dislike both this proposal and BIP100. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150828/439cc876/attachment.html>