Author: Jeff Garzik 2015-06-14 04:56:22
Published on: 2015-06-14T04:56:22+00:00
The concept of miner voting is the least-worst solution to inject market input into the system and has been field tested. Stakeholder and direct user voting is almost impossible to get right, according to a thread. Choosing block size is a central bank directive that shapes the fee market. The choice will dictate the level of competition for fees and the scarcity of an economically scarce resource. It also favors some businesses over others. BIP 100 includes two steps where user injection is visibly and actively injected to ensure checks-and-balances are in place. Users incentivize miners to be in agreement with them as miners provide confirmations they need. However, fees do not provide a great incentive for miners to agree with users. Jeff Garzik recently proposed that the upper blocksize limit be removed entirely, with a "soft" limit being enforced via miner votes, recorded by hashing power. We can add back a mechanism within the protocol for users to have any influence over the miner vote. Transactions may only be included in blocks with an identical vote, thus providing miners with a monetary incentive via fees to vote according to user wishes. John Dillon’s proposal for proof-of-stake blocksize voting is also noteworthy.
Updated on: 2023-06-09T22:57:41.308437+00:00