Adding back the list. Did not intend to remove it. Apologies.

Based on my observations, what the majority of Bitcoin users want

is a system that can carry more transactions per second than any

existing payment system while retaining most of the security

offered today. The technicalities on how this is achieved are not

as important as the end result. If the only user input is to

technicalities, they will use that to voice their opinions.

I don't recall Facebook or MySpace asking end users to alter the

parameters of their respective back-end network infrastructure.

How are Bitcoin end users qualified to make an informed decision

regarding block size limits? And why should they care?

Sure, I want Bitcoin to grow its user base. But to do that,

Bitcoin has to be accessible to the nontechnical population.

Asking nontechnical people to make technical decisions leads

directly to stress and confusion, which most folks find

off-putting.

And please don't call me Shirley. ;>

Surely you would prefer to actually have users? Bitcoin does not

exist in a vacuum. Network effect alone is not enough to ensure

success in the face of competition from alternatives with a much

better user experience. See Facebook vs MySpace, IE vs Netscape,

etc.

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

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



0000000000000000127ab1d576dc851f374424f1269c4700ccaba2c42d97e778

----------------------------------------------------------------------



Bitcoin-development mailing list

https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development

----------------------------------------------------------------------



_______________________________________________

Bitcoin-development mailing list

https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----Hash: SHA1A decentralized, distributed application should offer its usersdecentralized, distributed method of weighing in on the direction ofhow it evolves as well as having an open development model. Thereference to Facebook and Myspace is completely inapplicable herebecause the tyranny of such spaces isn't what we have with bitcoin(fortunately), nor would we want to try to replicate it, ever, in anyway, shape, or form.Yes, it does bother (some) people to see the consensus based systembecause of the difficulties that can be associated with implementingit. But that's the way it is. If you don't like consensus basedsystems (or decentralized, distributed systems) this is probably thewrong space for you./msg02323.html- --------_______________________________________________- --------- --http://abis.io ~"a protocol concept to enable decentralizationand expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good"https://keybase.io/odinn-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----Version: GnuPG v1iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVfQL0AAoJEGxwq/inSG8CRqMH/0l9tHGA8figVGnIBoMgdpViuwMGTQTjLUf12/NFS27vT+OLMWqZRvVXvlxDF25N7la+QImhh67LqmQy8fkwGg5TkJ6MkkFLgy05aqE/X3ywJUifOKmS3Y/RDDUJhrFjjHrsMGoF4ATtVwTpUBLik+kXG3XRNlInmyB55UEcpyfBg9kfLz8xiy6sBPeaeGnFLCNWTs5TgJ6DTFqhBAAmE8Hwk0tN6mW3wYS610FFkS2E3+W8O8KGs4oqAYLX/ZQOhX9oKjBvWWI4ppRpSDyBNcxdA6VAKyU8HCuDHAEwba6gdlUa+yf4qxuZV1KCNENbvtN1CTsJ6oh0OxnEO6dtogo==KZmG-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------