Proposal: We should vote on the blocksize limit with proof-of-stake voting

[piotr_n]

Ah, that's who you are. Yeah /ignore

That's exactly what I am talking about.

A guy who fixed a bug in the official bitcoin client, by adding one line of code: a hero who saved the network from an extremely dangerous DoS attack.

A guy who dared to suggest that we should extend the net protocol to be able to prevent similar attacks in a future: a troll /ignore

You guys are just pathetic.

[jdillon]

I need to get better at not touching that "show/hide" option... But on IRC yesterday most of the developers put piotr_n on ignore for being an idiot who wouldn't listen to people showing why his idea was stupid and wasting everyones' time instead: http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin-dev/logs/2013/06/28#l7875194 gmaxwell has the patience of a saint. (or a C++ developer on a slow machine)

Remind me to use the self-moderated threads option more often.


EDIT: I'll also point out how this "one-line-change" DoS attack was something that at least one of the Bitcoin developers knew about but didn't even realize it was an issue: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=31074593 Hopefully the other developers were just keeping their mouth shut and immediately understood how serious that issue was, but obviously it took a bit of insight on Peter's part to realize that the problem existed.

Heck, here's a Bitcoin for your efforts. Thank you!


-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
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=6qYH
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----

[piotr_n]

Yeah, gmaxwell's comments yesterday were extremely helpful. 
But it's not the first time I saw him talking bullshit, so I'm used to this.

@jdillon, you want to use self-moderated threads so nobody could tell you again that your idea is stupid?
way to go, man - that's how smart people solve problems

[FreeTrade]

Proof-of-stake voting is a superb idea.

Its potential is much wider than resolving the specific blocksize limit question. However, I don't believe it is right for Bitcoin. Bitcoin can't adopt major changes easily, if at all.

An altcoin supporting proof-of-stake voting could allow continuous voting on the block reward(inflation rate), transaction fee, awarding bounties, hashing algorithm parameters, etc.

The Bitcoin model has been to have a genius choose all these parameters correctly 5 years ago. That's worked well, but it is inflexible. A proof-of-stake voting model would trust the owners of a currency to modify the parameters as the currency and environment evolved. I trust the owners of a currency to vote in a way that strengthens the currency they own. Owner's interests are perfectly aligned with the long-term success of a currency. I'd like to see an altcoin where the owners decide monetary policy through proof-of-stake voting.

[cunicula]

Proof-of-stake voting is a superb idea.

Its potential is much wider than resolving the specific blocksize limit question. However, I don't believe it is right for Bitcoin. Bitcoin can't adopt major changes easily, if at all.

An altcoin supporting proof-of-stake voting could allow continuous voting on the block reward(inflation rate), transaction fee, awarding bounties, hashing algorithm parameters, etc.

The Bitcoin model has been to have a genius choose all these parameters correctly 5 years ago. That's worked well, but it is inflexible. A proof-of-stake voting model would trust the owners of a currency to modify the parameters as the currency and environment evolved. I trust the owners of a currency to vote in a way that strengthens the currency they own. Owner's interests are perfectly aligned with the long-term success of a currency. I'd like to see an altcoin where the owners decide monetary policy through proof-of-stake voting.

Ah a man after my own heart. I couldn't agree more.

You should check out the thread on netcoin which is an ambitious plan to implement some of these principles. I'm pretty sure this is going to be an iterative process (e.g.. think of ppcoin as the first several iterations).