Jeff Garzik [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: š Original date posted:2015-09-03 š Original message:Schemes proposing to pay ...
š
Original date posted:2015-09-03
š Original message:Schemes proposing to pay with difficulty / hashpower to change block size
should be avoided. The miners incentive has always been fairly
straightforward - it is rational to deploy new hashpower as soon as you can
get it online. Introducing the concepts of (a) requiring out-of-band
collusion to change block size and/or (b) requiring miners to have idle
hashpower on hand to change block size are both unrealistic and potentially
corrosive. That potentially makes the block size - and therefore fee
market - too close, too sensitive to the wild vagaries of the mining chip
market.
Pay-to-future-miner has neutral, forward looking incentives worth
researching.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150903/c3b89058/attachment.html>;
š Original message:Schemes proposing to pay with difficulty / hashpower to change block size
should be avoided. The miners incentive has always been fairly
straightforward - it is rational to deploy new hashpower as soon as you can
get it online. Introducing the concepts of (a) requiring out-of-band
collusion to change block size and/or (b) requiring miners to have idle
hashpower on hand to change block size are both unrealistic and potentially
corrosive. That potentially makes the block size - and therefore fee
market - too close, too sensitive to the wild vagaries of the mining chip
market.
Pay-to-future-miner has neutral, forward looking incentives worth
researching.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150903/c3b89058/attachment.html>;