📅 Original date posted:2015-08-29
📝 Original message:On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 4:46 PM, Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 12:35 AM, Chris Pacia via bitcoin-dev
> > It may be in everyone's collective interest to raise the block size but
> not
> > their individual interest.
>
> It is clear from recent events that miners are willing to collaborate
> together for the greater good of their industry. Miners have also
> publicly shown support for raising the blocksize collaboratively.
>
When have miners shown a willingness to make sacrifices for miners as a
whole when they've been in a "public good"[1] situation? Miners
collaborating to release statements to the public about which BIPs they
support is very different from miners incurring costs only to themselves in
order to help the entire group. They might do so, but it isn't clear.
I agree with Jorge and Mark that allowing miners to vote on the block size
is not ideal. Miners interests are somewhat aligned with those of the
broader community, but not perfectly aligned. The block size level that
maximizes miner revenue is not necessarily desirable overall. More miner
revenue is only good if the marginal extra security that it buys is worth
the extra cost. In addition to the cost of higher user fees, there's
another hidden cost. In Bitcoin's early stages trying to maximize revenue
too soon can slow growth and result in less revenue when it's more needed
(when block rewards are much lower).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150829/9386d2f4/attachment.html>;
Elliot Olds [ARCHIVE] /
npub16w…lgem7
2023-06-07 17:37:58
in reply to nevent1q…m02n
Author Public Key
npub16wtdr5grjycaw37553u5vvlfq09rwxhzz4kler6pz952a7ny6mtqslgem7Published at
2023-06-07 17:37:58Event JSON
{
"id": "2dab2d37223faed5887b285d88fd648ded00d5ecce24e922546e208f46beaa13",
"pubkey": "d396d1d1039131d747d4a4794633e903ca371ae2156dfc8f411168aefa64d6d6",
"created_at": 1686159478,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"89feefa8fe3dbd95b7d3a6c8b355b09f064e01d014925a52bfb3842ed0275076",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"0e0a468ce221c23da33e16d6c6b530839ebddb81a3a7b9cfe8e7c1b83f5e4588",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"fdf31024ca0537ed828d895ddc8525f8af023f0dc935a8327a8a496d0d7a9f83"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-08-29\n📝 Original message:On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 4:46 PM, Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 12:35 AM, Chris Pacia via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \u003e It may be in everyone's collective interest to raise the block size but\n\u003e not\n\u003e \u003e their individual interest.\n\u003e\n\u003e It is clear from recent events that miners are willing to collaborate\n\u003e together for the greater good of their industry. Miners have also\n\u003e publicly shown support for raising the blocksize collaboratively.\n\u003e\n\nWhen have miners shown a willingness to make sacrifices for miners as a\nwhole when they've been in a \"public good\"[1] situation? Miners\ncollaborating to release statements to the public about which BIPs they\nsupport is very different from miners incurring costs only to themselves in\norder to help the entire group. They might do so, but it isn't clear.\n\nI agree with Jorge and Mark that allowing miners to vote on the block size\nis not ideal. Miners interests are somewhat aligned with those of the\nbroader community, but not perfectly aligned. The block size level that\nmaximizes miner revenue is not necessarily desirable overall. More miner\nrevenue is only good if the marginal extra security that it buys is worth\nthe extra cost. In addition to the cost of higher user fees, there's\nanother hidden cost. In Bitcoin's early stages trying to maximize revenue\ntoo soon can slow growth and result in less revenue when it's more needed\n(when block rewards are much lower).\n\n[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150829/9386d2f4/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "370f1eabc13a18e6847f3440d908bb7949cc60ccec291e69ee44e141547e8155cfda619d7e59ed20818c8da0ffe826198fa346ffe095d3afb4b248549fa9e488"
}