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

On 13 Jun 2015 4:52 pm, Raystonn <> wrote:

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.

On 13 Jun 2015 4:25 pm, Danny Thorpe <> wrote:
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.  ;>

On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Raystonn <> wrote:

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.

On 13 Jun 2015 3:20 pm, Danny Thorpe <> wrote:
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.


On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Peter Todd <> wrote:
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 voting:



Bitcoin-development mailing list

Bitcoin-development mailing list

Reply via email to