On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 02:36:31PM -0400, Matt Whitlock wrote:
> On Friday, 12 June 2015, at 7:34 pm, Peter Todd wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 02:22:36PM -0400, Matt Whitlock wrote:
> > > Why should miners only be able to vote for "double the limit" or "halve"
> > > the limit? If you're going to use bits, I think you need to use two bits:
> > >
> > > 0 0 = no preference ("wildcard" vote)
> > > 0 1 = vote for the limit to remain the same
> > > 1 0 = vote for the limit to be halved
> > > 1 1 = vote for the limit to be doubled
> > >
> > > User transactions would follow the same usage. In particular, a user vote
> > > of "0 0" (no preference) could be included in a block casting any vote,
> > > but a block voting "0 0" (no preference) could only contain transactions
> > > voting "0 0" as well.
> >
> > Sounds like a good encoding to me. Taking the median of the three
> > options, and throwing away "don't care" votes entirely, makes sense.
>
> I hope you mean the *plurality* of the three options after throwing away the
> "don't cares," not the *median*.Median ensures that voting "no change" is meaningful. If "double" + "no change" = 66%-1, you'd expect the result to be "no change", not "halve"" With a plurality vote you'd end up with a halving that was supported by a minority. -- 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 0000000000000000127ab1d576dc851f374424f1269c4700ccaba2c42d97e778
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
