📅 Original date posted:2017-03-27
📝 Original message:> [...] we don't need to implement any kind of special bloated transaction that is only mine-able by some explicit set of miners... No fork or compatibility problems are necessary, can be completely implemented as an added feature.
Yes, absolutely. It would still be helpful if it is somewhat
standardized on the Client level.
> Re: "Miners": I don't really like calling them "transaction processors" because in bitcoin, every synchronizing node that verifies signatures is a transaction processor.
I agree and I really appreciate the explanation! Transaction Processor
is not optimal, I brought up BSA: Block Space Authority before to
slice the pie in terms of it legitimate power structure instead of its
functionality. I maintain that this is better for higher level
discourse. Maybe something like "Consensus Space Sovereign" would be
more suitable.
> What sets them apart from full relay nodes is they create "blocks", which are "ledger change candidates" that included transactions and proof-of-work (PoW: deterministic diffusion puzzle solutions).
Functionally, a node can moderate the network in the following way:
1. Relay transactions (mempool) and the global memory (blockchain)
2. Construct block headers (PoW: deterministic diffusion puzzle
solutions) and write to the global memory (create "blocks", which are
"ledger change candidates")
3. Read, verify and accept changes to the global memory
> Given the above definition of a "block", I would be happy calling them "Block Producers"... which does not imply that they do all of the necessary "transaction processing": that all users should be fine with running Electrum wallets or even SPV clients. They produce blocks, but its still up to other users in the network to do "transaction processing": decide for themselves if they want to accept particular blocks.
"Block Generator" (ala Satoshi) may be better but let's look at the
power structure analog to the functionality:
1. Authority to propose a change
2. Authority to approve a change
3. Authority to reject a change
This can easily be understood in current political terms. In Spain a:
1. Citizen can propose to engage in a business (voice)
2. (Special) Citizen (the King) can disapprove of the business (sovereign)
3. Citizen can leave Spain (exit)
Likewise, citizens can engage with the sovereign in order to change
some regulation, say average transaction tax. The question is simply
what legitimate authority a node has. We can map that quite neatly
onto the terminology of 'Politics'.
That does also away with naive 51% attack scenarios and the like. They
are akin to aliens invading earth. Surely it is not impossible that
aliens invade and in Bitcoin land, it is currently conceivable, but
most conflicts are not brought about by a single devilish aggressor
but a special interest group that wants to concentrate benefits and
diffuse costs.
- Transaction Tiering could be a great basis for decentralized negotiations.
Regards
Martin
On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 10:30 PM, praxeology_guy
<praxeology_guy at protonmail.com> wrote:
> Martin:
>
> Re: Miners not relaying unconfirmed txs... I was saying that this was a
> good thing from your perspective in wanting to give users the choice on
> which miners would get to confirm the tx. So then like we don't need to
> implement any kind of special bloated transaction that is only mine-able by
> some explicit set of miners... No fork or compatibility problems are
> necessary, can be completely implemented as an added feature.
>
> Re: "Miners": I don't really like calling them "transaction processors"
> because in bitcoin, every synchronizing node that verifies signatures is a
> transaction processor. What sets them apart from full relay nodes is they
> create "blocks", which are "ledger change candidates" that included
> transactions and proof-of-work (PoW: deterministic diffusion puzzle
> solutions). They help create confidence that transactions in blocks will
> never by double spent by requiring that double spending would need lots of
> economic resources for someone else to re-perform the PoW.
>
> Given the above definition of a "block", I would be happy calling them
> "Block Producers"... which does not imply that they do all of the necessary
> "transaction processing": that all users should be fine with running
> Electrum wallets or even SPV clients. They produce blocks, but its still up
> to other users in the network to do "transaction processing": decide for
> themselves if they want to accept particular blocks.
>
> Cheers,
> Praxeology Guy
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Inquiry: Transaction Tiering
> Local Time: March 25, 2017 12:15 PM
> UTC Time: March 25, 2017 5:15 PM
> From: martin at stolze.cc
> To: praxeology_guy <praxeology_guy at protonmail.com>
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>
> Thanks, those are valid concerns.
>
>> Potentially miners could create their own private communication
>> channel/listening port for submitting transactions that they would not relay
>> to other miners/the public node relay network.
> That is the idea. Transaction Processors could source transactions
> from the public mempool as well their proprietary mempool(s).
>
>> Miners would be incentivized to not relay higher fee transactions, because
>> they would want to keep them to themselves for higher profits.
> Not so, a user may want to incentivise a specific Transaction
> Processor or many. A user can detect this behavior and withdraw his
> future business if he notices that his transaction is not included in
> a block despite there being transactions with lower fees included.
> Remember, the transaction can be advertised to different mempools and
> a Transaction Processor could lose this business to a competitor who
> processes the next block if he holds it back.
>
> Best Regards
> Martin
>
> PS: It seems not too late to get rid of misleading terms like "miner".
> Block rewards (infrastructure subsidies) will be neglectable for
> future generations and the analogy is exceedingly poor.
>
> On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 4:42 AM, praxeology_guy
> <praxeology_guy at protonmail.com> wrote:
>> Potentially miners could create their own private communication
>> channel/listening port for submitting transactions that they would not
>> relay
>> to other miners/the public node relay network. Users could then chose who
>> they want to relay to. Miners would be incentivized to not relay higher
>> fee
>> transactions, because they would want to keep them to themselves for
>> higher
>> profits.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Praxeology Guy
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Inquiry: Transaction Tiering
>> Local Time: March 22, 2017 12:48 PM
>> UTC Time: March 22, 2017 5:48 PM
>> From: bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> To: bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>
>> Hi Tim,
>> After writing this I figured that it was probably not evident at first
>> sight as the concept may be quite novel. The physical location of the
>> "miner" is indeed irrelevant, I am referring to the digital location.
>> Bitcoins blockchain is a digital location or better digital "space".
>> As far as I am concerned the authority lies with whoever governs this
>> particular block space. A "miner" can, or can not, include my
>> transaction.
>>
>> To make this more understandable:
>>
>> Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi can extend his caliphate into Bitcoins block
>> space and rule sovereign(!) over a given block. If he processes my
>> transaction my fee goes directly into the coffers of his organization.
>> The same goes for the Queen of England or the Emperor of China. My
>> interest is not necessarily aligned with each specific authority, yet
>> as you point out, I can only not use Bitcoin.
>> Alternatively, however, I can very well sign my transaction and send
>> it to an authority of my choosing to be included into the ledger, say
>> BitFurry. - This is what I describe in option 1.
>>
>> In order to protect my interest I do need to choose, maybe not today,
>> but eventually.
>>
>> I also think that people do care who processes transactions and a lot
>> of bickering could be spared if we could choose.
>>
>> If we assume a perfectly competitive market with 3 authorities that
>> govern the block space equally, the marginal cost of 1/3 of the block
>> space is the same for each, however, the marginal revenue absent of
>> block rewards is dependent on fees.
>> If people are willing to pay only a zero fee to a specific authority
>> while a fee greater than zero to the others it's clear that one would
>> be less competitive.
>>
>> Let us assume the fees are 10% of the revenue and the cost is 95 we
>> have currently the following situation:
>>
>> A: Cost=95; Revenue=100; Profit=5
>> B: Cost=95; Revenue=100; Profit=5
>> C: Cost=95; Revenue=100; Profit=5
>>
>> With transaction tiering, the outcome could be different!
>>
>> A: Cost=95; Revenue=90; Loss=5 // BSA that does not respect user interest.
>> B: Cost=95; Revenue=105; Profit=10
>> C: Cost=95; Revenue=105; Profit=10
>>
>> This could motivate transaction processors to behave in accordance
>> with user interest, or am I missing something?
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Martin
>>
>>> From: Tim Ruffing <tim.ruffing at mmci.uni-saarland.de>
>>> To: bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> Cc:
>>> Bcc:
>>> Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 16:18:26 +0100
>>> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Inquiry: Transaction Tiering
>>> (I'm not a lawyer...)
>>>
>>> I'm not sure if I can make sense of your email.
>>>
>>> On Mon, 2017-03-20 at 20:12 +0000, Martin Stolze via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>>>> As a participant in the economy in general and of Bitcoin in
>>>> particular, I desire an ability to decide where I transact. The
>>>> current state of Bitcoin does not allow me to choose my place of
>>>> business. As a consequence, I try to learn what would be the best way
>>>> to conduct my business in good faith. [2]
>>>
>>> Ignoring the rest, I don't think that the physical location /
>>> jurisdiction of the miner has any legal implications for law applicable
>>> to the relationship between sender and receiver of a payment.
>>>
>>> This is not particular to Bitcoin. We're both in Germany (I guess).
>>> Assume we have a contract without specific agreements and I pay you in
>>> Icelandic kronur via PayPal (in Luxembourg) and my HTTPS requests to
>>> PayPal went via Australia and the US. Then German law applies to our
>>> contract, nothing in the middle can change that.
>>>
>>> Also ignoring possible security implications, there is just no need for
>>> a mechanism that enables users to select miners. I claim that almost
>>> nobody cares who will mine a transaction, because it makes no technical
>>> difference. If you don't want a specific miner to mine your
>>> transaction, then don't use Bitcoin.
>>>
>>> Tim
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>>
>
>
Martin Stolze [ARCHIVE] /
npub1e5…gjrht
2023-06-07 17:57:33
in reply to nevent1q…5fmm
Author Public Key
npub1e56wpjk83eh8q2ccng7zhcqmcy0rgza577gpu0cfrqn34xkwct8qagjrhtPublished at
2023-06-07 17:57:33Event JSON
{
"id": "efae8f3c8b7e2b259e02ad04a77acdae592decaa1444702769d632d606efec32",
"pubkey": "cd34e0cac78e6e702b189a3c2be01bc11e340bb4f7901e3f0918271a9acec2ce",
"created_at": 1686160653,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"ad7e90d867377a53e2165bf8105a6bd781b67b75209ba255f9a84dd9956506ed",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"73717f54a01aeef8edb9bc79619799c34de118f3dadbf76a5d606e45558dc0ad",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"0a95089f6ab08d323a2ca832fd5f50d9fb500dab319e564dbdaeb3ec20a52757"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-03-27\n📝 Original message:\u003e [...] we don't need to implement any kind of special bloated transaction that is only mine-able by some explicit set of miners... No fork or compatibility problems are necessary, can be completely implemented as an added feature.\n\nYes, absolutely. It would still be helpful if it is somewhat\nstandardized on the Client level.\n\n\u003e Re: \"Miners\": I don't really like calling them \"transaction processors\" because in bitcoin, every synchronizing node that verifies signatures is a transaction processor.\n\nI agree and I really appreciate the explanation! Transaction Processor\nis not optimal, I brought up BSA: Block Space Authority before to\nslice the pie in terms of it legitimate power structure instead of its\nfunctionality. I maintain that this is better for higher level\ndiscourse. Maybe something like \"Consensus Space Sovereign\" would be\nmore suitable.\n\n\u003e What sets them apart from full relay nodes is they create \"blocks\", which are \"ledger change candidates\" that included transactions and proof-of-work (PoW: deterministic diffusion puzzle solutions).\n\nFunctionally, a node can moderate the network in the following way:\n1. Relay transactions (mempool) and the global memory (blockchain)\n2. Construct block headers (PoW: deterministic diffusion puzzle\nsolutions) and write to the global memory (create \"blocks\", which are\n\"ledger change candidates\")\n3. Read, verify and accept changes to the global memory\n\n\u003e Given the above definition of a \"block\", I would be happy calling them \"Block Producers\"... which does not imply that they do all of the necessary \"transaction processing\": that all users should be fine with running Electrum wallets or even SPV clients. They produce blocks, but its still up to other users in the network to do \"transaction processing\": decide for themselves if they want to accept particular blocks.\n\n\"Block Generator\" (ala Satoshi) may be better but let's look at the\npower structure analog to the functionality:\n1. Authority to propose a change\n2. Authority to approve a change\n3. Authority to reject a change\n\nThis can easily be understood in current political terms. In Spain a:\n1. Citizen can propose to engage in a business (voice)\n2. (Special) Citizen (the King) can disapprove of the business (sovereign)\n3. Citizen can leave Spain (exit)\n\nLikewise, citizens can engage with the sovereign in order to change\nsome regulation, say average transaction tax. The question is simply\nwhat legitimate authority a node has. We can map that quite neatly\nonto the terminology of 'Politics'.\n\nThat does also away with naive 51% attack scenarios and the like. They\nare akin to aliens invading earth. Surely it is not impossible that\naliens invade and in Bitcoin land, it is currently conceivable, but\nmost conflicts are not brought about by a single devilish aggressor\nbut a special interest group that wants to concentrate benefits and\ndiffuse costs.\n- Transaction Tiering could be a great basis for decentralized negotiations.\n\nRegards\nMartin\n\n\nOn Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 10:30 PM, praxeology_guy\n\u003cpraxeology_guy at protonmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e Martin:\n\u003e\n\u003e Re: Miners not relaying unconfirmed txs... I was saying that this was a\n\u003e good thing from your perspective in wanting to give users the choice on\n\u003e which miners would get to confirm the tx. So then like we don't need to\n\u003e implement any kind of special bloated transaction that is only mine-able by\n\u003e some explicit set of miners... No fork or compatibility problems are\n\u003e necessary, can be completely implemented as an added feature.\n\u003e\n\u003e Re: \"Miners\": I don't really like calling them \"transaction processors\"\n\u003e because in bitcoin, every synchronizing node that verifies signatures is a\n\u003e transaction processor. What sets them apart from full relay nodes is they\n\u003e create \"blocks\", which are \"ledger change candidates\" that included\n\u003e transactions and proof-of-work (PoW: deterministic diffusion puzzle\n\u003e solutions). They help create confidence that transactions in blocks will\n\u003e never by double spent by requiring that double spending would need lots of\n\u003e economic resources for someone else to re-perform the PoW.\n\u003e\n\u003e Given the above definition of a \"block\", I would be happy calling them\n\u003e \"Block Producers\"... which does not imply that they do all of the necessary\n\u003e \"transaction processing\": that all users should be fine with running\n\u003e Electrum wallets or even SPV clients. They produce blocks, but its still up\n\u003e to other users in the network to do \"transaction processing\": decide for\n\u003e themselves if they want to accept particular blocks.\n\u003e\n\u003e Cheers,\n\u003e Praxeology Guy\n\u003e\n\u003e -------- Original Message --------\n\u003e Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Inquiry: Transaction Tiering\n\u003e Local Time: March 25, 2017 12:15 PM\n\u003e UTC Time: March 25, 2017 5:15 PM\n\u003e From: martin at stolze.cc\n\u003e To: praxeology_guy \u003cpraxeology_guy at protonmail.com\u003e\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\n\u003e Thanks, those are valid concerns.\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Potentially miners could create their own private communication\n\u003e\u003e channel/listening port for submitting transactions that they would not relay\n\u003e\u003e to other miners/the public node relay network.\n\u003e That is the idea. Transaction Processors could source transactions\n\u003e from the public mempool as well their proprietary mempool(s).\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Miners would be incentivized to not relay higher fee transactions, because\n\u003e\u003e they would want to keep them to themselves for higher profits.\n\u003e Not so, a user may want to incentivise a specific Transaction\n\u003e Processor or many. A user can detect this behavior and withdraw his\n\u003e future business if he notices that his transaction is not included in\n\u003e a block despite there being transactions with lower fees included.\n\u003e Remember, the transaction can be advertised to different mempools and\n\u003e a Transaction Processor could lose this business to a competitor who\n\u003e processes the next block if he holds it back.\n\u003e\n\u003e Best Regards\n\u003e Martin\n\u003e\n\u003e PS: It seems not too late to get rid of misleading terms like \"miner\".\n\u003e Block rewards (infrastructure subsidies) will be neglectable for\n\u003e future generations and the analogy is exceedingly poor.\n\u003e\n\u003e On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 4:42 AM, praxeology_guy\n\u003e \u003cpraxeology_guy at protonmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e Potentially miners could create their own private communication\n\u003e\u003e channel/listening port for submitting transactions that they would not\n\u003e\u003e relay\n\u003e\u003e to other miners/the public node relay network. Users could then chose who\n\u003e\u003e they want to relay to. Miners would be incentivized to not relay higher\n\u003e\u003e fee\n\u003e\u003e transactions, because they would want to keep them to themselves for\n\u003e\u003e higher\n\u003e\u003e profits.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Cheers,\n\u003e\u003e Praxeology Guy\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e -------- Original Message --------\n\u003e\u003e Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Inquiry: Transaction Tiering\n\u003e\u003e Local Time: March 22, 2017 12:48 PM\n\u003e\u003e UTC Time: March 22, 2017 5:48 PM\n\u003e\u003e From: bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e To: bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Hi Tim,\n\u003e\u003e After writing this I figured that it was probably not evident at first\n\u003e\u003e sight as the concept may be quite novel. The physical location of the\n\u003e\u003e \"miner\" is indeed irrelevant, I am referring to the digital location.\n\u003e\u003e Bitcoins blockchain is a digital location or better digital \"space\".\n\u003e\u003e As far as I am concerned the authority lies with whoever governs this\n\u003e\u003e particular block space. A \"miner\" can, or can not, include my\n\u003e\u003e transaction.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e To make this more understandable:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi can extend his caliphate into Bitcoins block\n\u003e\u003e space and rule sovereign(!) over a given block. If he processes my\n\u003e\u003e transaction my fee goes directly into the coffers of his organization.\n\u003e\u003e The same goes for the Queen of England or the Emperor of China. My\n\u003e\u003e interest is not necessarily aligned with each specific authority, yet\n\u003e\u003e as you point out, I can only not use Bitcoin.\n\u003e\u003e Alternatively, however, I can very well sign my transaction and send\n\u003e\u003e it to an authority of my choosing to be included into the ledger, say\n\u003e\u003e BitFurry. - This is what I describe in option 1.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e In order to protect my interest I do need to choose, maybe not today,\n\u003e\u003e but eventually.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I also think that people do care who processes transactions and a lot\n\u003e\u003e of bickering could be spared if we could choose.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e If we assume a perfectly competitive market with 3 authorities that\n\u003e\u003e govern the block space equally, the marginal cost of 1/3 of the block\n\u003e\u003e space is the same for each, however, the marginal revenue absent of\n\u003e\u003e block rewards is dependent on fees.\n\u003e\u003e If people are willing to pay only a zero fee to a specific authority\n\u003e\u003e while a fee greater than zero to the others it's clear that one would\n\u003e\u003e be less competitive.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Let us assume the fees are 10% of the revenue and the cost is 95 we\n\u003e\u003e have currently the following situation:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e A: Cost=95; Revenue=100; Profit=5\n\u003e\u003e B: Cost=95; Revenue=100; Profit=5\n\u003e\u003e C: Cost=95; Revenue=100; Profit=5\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e With transaction tiering, the outcome could be different!\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e A: Cost=95; Revenue=90; Loss=5 // BSA that does not respect user interest.\n\u003e\u003e B: Cost=95; Revenue=105; Profit=10\n\u003e\u003e C: Cost=95; Revenue=105; Profit=10\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e This could motivate transaction processors to behave in accordance\n\u003e\u003e with user interest, or am I missing something?\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Best Regards,\n\u003e\u003e Martin\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e From: Tim Ruffing \u003ctim.ruffing at mmci.uni-saarland.de\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e To: bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Cc:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Bcc:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 16:18:26 +0100\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Inquiry: Transaction Tiering\n\u003e\u003e\u003e (I'm not a lawyer...)\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e I'm not sure if I can make sense of your email.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e On Mon, 2017-03-20 at 20:12 +0000, Martin Stolze via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e As a participant in the economy in general and of Bitcoin in\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e particular, I desire an ability to decide where I transact. The\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e current state of Bitcoin does not allow me to choose my place of\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e business. As a consequence, I try to learn what would be the best way\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e to conduct my business in good faith. [2]\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Ignoring the rest, I don't think that the physical location /\n\u003e\u003e\u003e jurisdiction of the miner has any legal implications for law applicable\n\u003e\u003e\u003e to the relationship between sender and receiver of a payment.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e This is not particular to Bitcoin. We're both in Germany (I guess).\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Assume we have a contract without specific agreements and I pay you in\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Icelandic kronur via PayPal (in Luxembourg) and my HTTPS requests to\n\u003e\u003e\u003e PayPal went via Australia and the US. Then German law applies to our\n\u003e\u003e\u003e contract, nothing in the middle can change that.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Also ignoring possible security implications, there is just no need for\n\u003e\u003e\u003e a mechanism that enables users to select miners. I claim that almost\n\u003e\u003e\u003e nobody cares who will mine a transaction, because it makes no technical\n\u003e\u003e\u003e difference. If you don't want a specific miner to mine your\n\u003e\u003e\u003e transaction, then don't use Bitcoin.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Tim\n\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e",
"sig": "eff0ffaadc32d28d2ac64507360d665b1d9a78eefea7da71f2f1506cec32cdaf1850018f797b367a05263ef22f8305d24223376b78ed55ce6b82a64c85ed9a38"
}