rich1.0npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8https://nostr.ae/npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-08-28 📝 Original message: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.