BIP100 gives miners too much power. Everyone should reconsider it

[Ingatqhvq]

Yes, we should reject BIP 100.
but if the miner decide to vote BIP100, what we can do but to accept it.

[tiggytomb]

Miners make the rules. That's how the system is designed.

The problem is that the design didn't anticipate 2 or 3 mining pools being a majority.

I agree, it would have been expected or assumed that there would be many many miners and not a few large pools dominating. 

[meono]

Without miners' support, we can't fork bitcoin to accept higher than 1M blocksize. It is important to have a majority in the mining sector to make any changes to the bitcoin protocol. If BIP100 is the only BIP they would support, then we would have to accept BIP100 unless we miraculously find hashing power to secure a non-BIP100 fork.

Wrong, cant believe you're a legendary member and saying this.

If miners forces a rule that we dont agree, we will have to ignore them and treat them as an 51% attack. Ignore the longest chain with checkpoints.

However the economic incentives dictates that they will only follow rules by the network. Thats exactly how its always been. BIP100 will change this. The effect by their manipulation will not be seen short term or instantly as a 51% attack.

[meono]

Yes, we should reject BIP 100.
but if the miner decide to vote BIP100, what we can do but to accept it.

So ask yourself, what happens if miners decide to increase block reward? create  high minimum tx fees?

Simple, we will not use their fork. Mining cost does not give one coin its value.

Edit: everyone seems to think miners make rules or dictate the proposal. Thats a wrong. Miners are rewarded to secure the network. It goes both ways. Thats why its in their best interest to follow the healthy chain. They dont even give any rat about bitcoin, they're only in for profits. If merchants and exchanges dont support their BIP, thats the end of it. Simple as that.

[johnyj]

BIP100 encourage everyone to get themselves a mining rig. If you have a miner, you could point it to the pool that support the solution you like

[turvarya]

BIP100 encourage everyone to get themselves a mining rig. If you have a miner, you could point it to the pool that support the solution you like

No, it does not. Just buying a mining rig to vote, will cost you a lot of money without getting real power, since there are just too many well-organized miners and your hashing power doesn't matter.

[adamstgBit]

silliness,

letting miners agree to a block limit of  1MB - 32MB is not "giving miners too much power"

what are they going to do with this power besides make sure block limit is always about twice as much as avg block size?

[TinEye]

Yes, we should reject BIP 100.
but if the miner decide to vote BIP100, what we can do but to accept it.

So ask yourself, what happens if miners decide to increase block reward? create  high minimum tx fees?

Simple, we will not use their fork. Mining cost does not give one coin its value.

Edit: everyone seems to think miners make rules or dictate the proposal. Thats a wrong. Miners are rewarded to secure the network. It goes both ways. Thats why its in their best interest to follow the healthy chain. They dont even give any rat about bitcoin, they're only in for profits. If merchants and exchanges dont support their BIP, thats the end of it. Simple as that.

but what happen if miners and a good percentage of big merchants choose bip100? at the end we must follow right? and they will be able to dictate what they want with the fees
there was a case where bitpay was supporting XT for example, which isn't good for the rest of us, in the worst scenario a thing like this can kill bitcoin

[johnyj]

BIP100 encourage everyone to get themselves a mining rig. If you have a miner, you could point it to the pool that support the solution you like

No, it does not. Just buying a mining rig to vote, will cost you a lot of money without getting real power, since there are just too many well-organized miners and your hashing power doesn't matter.

Of course it matters. Suppose that there are 100K home and garage miners, each of them averagely have 1T hash power, they are totaling 100P hash which is more than 1/4 of the network hash, and their number will grow with more and more industry mining operations fall apart due to unprofitable operation. Those miners will move their hash power between different pools to reflect their opinion

Home miners are not profit oriented, mostly treat it like a game, this is their biggest advantage over speculative mining farms

Hash power is your vote in the bitcoin ecosystem, just like a voting ticket, but it is not one vote per person, so rich people will get more vote, that is a fact. Anyway better than current monetary system where you definitely have no right to vote anything

[knight22]

silliness,

letting miners agree to a block limit of  1MB - 32MB is not "giving miners too much power"

what are they going to do with this power besides make sure block limit is always about twice as much as avg block size?

So let the miners collude to lower the block size and artificially raise the fees for their own profit? I am mistaken or the incentives are VERY badly aligned?

[achow101]

silliness,

letting miners agree to a block limit of  1MB - 32MB is not "giving miners too much power"

what are they going to do with this power besides make sure block limit is always about twice as much as avg block size?

So let the miners collude to lower the block size and artificially raise the fees for their own profit? I am mistaken or the incentives are VERY badly aligned?

Or the people who are making the transactions stop using Bitcoin and now the miners are not making any money, or are making less. There is a disincentive and higher risk for them to be creating small blocks since it does not guarantee that a fee market would form and that people would continue to use Bitcoin if the fees started to go up. The only way they would guarantee a profit from fees would be to keep the block sizes large enough to contain a lot of transactions to collect the most fees.

[johnyj]

silliness,

letting miners agree to a block limit of  1MB - 32MB is not "giving miners too much power"

what are they going to do with this power besides make sure block limit is always about twice as much as avg block size?

So let the miners collude to lower the block size and artificially raise the fees for their own profit? I am mistaken or the incentives are VERY badly aligned?

Miners would first care about if their action will cause people lose trust in bitcoin and destroy its value

[knight22]

silliness,

letting miners agree to a block limit of  1MB - 32MB is not "giving miners too much power"

what are they going to do with this power besides make sure block limit is always about twice as much as avg block size?

So let the miners collude to lower the block size and artificially raise the fees for their own profit? I am mistaken or the incentives are VERY badly aligned?

Miners would first care about if their action will cause people lose trust in bitcoin and destroy its value

If that would be true, why they don't listen the merchant side that supports BIP101 which gives them a predictable room for growth? Merchants and market makers are the one that ultimately give usefulness to the coin and therefore value. BIP101 forces miners into a competitive technical environment while BIP100 gives them incentives for collusion. That's how I see it.

[meono]

silliness,

letting miners agree to a block limit of  1MB - 32MB is not "giving miners too much power"

what are they going to do with this power besides make sure block limit is always about twice as much as avg block size?

So let the miners collude to lower the block size and artificially raise the fees for their own profit? I am mistaken or the incentives are VERY badly aligned?

Miners would first care about if their action will cause people lose trust in bitcoin and destroy its value

Oh please you know you dont even believe that.

You've been crying about centralization of mining for so long everone on this board heard you. You say these evil mining corps are not what you saw in Satoshi's vision. You said the industrial mining only care to make money.... Blah blah


So please dont embarass yourself.... This is why i cant never take you seriously

[meono]

silliness,

letting miners agree to a block limit of  1MB - 32MB is not "giving miners too much power"

what are they going to do with this power besides make sure block limit is always about twice as much as avg block size?

So let the miners collude to lower the block size and artificially raise the fees for their own profit? I am mistaken or the incentives are VERY badly aligned?

Miners would first care about if their action will cause people lose trust in bitcoin and destroy its value

If that would be true, why they don't listen the merchant side that supports BIP101 which gives them a predictable room for growth? Merchants and market makers are the one that ultimately give usefulness to the coin and therefore value. BIP101 forces miners into a competitive technical environment while BIP100 give incentives for collusion. That's how I see it.

Exactly. We are not trying to fix a simple problem (blocksize limit increase) with a complex solution.

Whether you like it or not it all comes down to if you agree with Gavin's preditction of technological growth or not. The blocksize limit should be increased accordingly to the techonological growth and ignores everything else.

You're mining on top of Himalayas? Tough luck if you dont have network infrastructure to support it.

[adamstgBit]

silliness,

letting miners agree to a block limit of  1MB - 32MB is not "giving miners too much power"

what are they going to do with this power besides make sure block limit is always about twice as much as avg block size?

So let the miners collude to lower the block size and artificially raise the fees for their own profit? I am mistaken or the incentives are VERY badly aligned?

Miners would first care about if their action will cause people lose trust in bitcoin and destroy its value

If that would be true, why they don't listen the merchant side that supports BIP101 which gives them a predictable room for growth? Merchants and market makers are the one that ultimately give usefulness to the coin and therefore value. BIP101 forces miners into a competitive technical environment while BIP100 give incentives for collusion. That's how I see it.

Exactly. We are not trying to fix a simple problem (blocksize limit increase) with a complex solution.

Whether you like it or not it all comes down to if you agree with Gavin's preditction of technological growth or not. The blocksize limit should be increased accordingly to the techonological growth and ignores everything else.

You're mining on top of Himalayas? Tough luck if you dont have network infrastructure to support it.

theres also the idea that sidechains will sgainifacily reduce traffic on the main chain.

we should kick the can down the road and implement a more permanent solution like BIP101 if its is needed, not try to guess what the future holds.

[MCHouston]

When you get down to the core of Bitcoin it is mainly just the miners and the node operators, in most cases these are the same people.  Only two things are really required for the blockchain to exist and bitcoins to be generated and secured, and that is full nodes and miners.  As these are the people that basically run the network for everyone one else, why do you think giving them the ability to adjust block size is too much power?

Its not like you are giving the decision to one person or company, it will be many many companys/people.

[knight22]

silliness,

letting miners agree to a block limit of  1MB - 32MB is not "giving miners too much power"

what are they going to do with this power besides make sure block limit is always about twice as much as avg block size?

So let the miners collude to lower the block size and artificially raise the fees for their own profit? I am mistaken or the incentives are VERY badly aligned?

Miners would first care about if their action will cause people lose trust in bitcoin and destroy its value

If that would be true, why they don't listen the merchant side that supports BIP101 which gives them a predictable room for growth? Merchants and market makers are the one that ultimately give usefulness to the coin and therefore value. BIP101 forces miners into a competitive technical environment while BIP100 give incentives for collusion. That's how I see it.

Exactly. We are not trying to fix a simple problem (blocksize limit increase) with a complex solution.

Whether you like it or not it all comes down to if you agree with Gavin's preditction of technological growth or not. The blocksize limit should be increased accordingly to the techonological growth and ignores everything else.

You're mining on top of Himalayas? Tough luck if you dont have network infrastructure to support it.

theres also the idea that sidechains will sgainifacily reduce traffic on the main chain.

we should kick the can down the road and implement a more permanent solution like BIP101 if its is needed, not try to guess what the future holds.

Although I am all for sidechains, forcing the market off the blockchain is a terribly bad idea. Higher fees on the blockchain will gives incentives to go offchain lowering incentives to miners to mine the blockchain and keeping it secure. The market should always have the choice to go where it see fit.

[adamstgBit]

When you get down to the core of Bitcoin it is mainly just the miners and the node operators, in most cases these are the same people.  Only two things are really required for the blockchain to exist and bitcoins to be generated and secured, and that is full nodes and miners.  As these are the people that basically run the network for everyone one else, why do you think giving them the ability to adjust block size is too much power?

Its not like you are giving the decision to one person or company, it will be many many companies/people.

because these companies/people might all decided to team up and harm bitcoin by lowering the limit so they can incress the fees.

because obviously they would make more money if bticoin was <1TPS with 1$ fee pre TX.

lol

this agreement is invalid....

[LiteCoinGuy]

BIP 100 is still work in progress. maybe there will be some changes.