Why do it as an OP_RETURN output? It could be a simple token in the
coinbase input script, similar to how support for P2SH was signaled among
miners. And why should there be an explicit token for voting for the status
quo? Simply omitting any indication should be an implicit vote for the
Why do it as an OP_RETURN output? It could be a simple token in the coinbase
input script, similar to how support for P2SH was signaled among miners. And
why should there be an explicit token for voting for the status quo? Simply
omitting any indication should be an implicit vote for the status
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Stephen Morse stephencalebmo...@gmail.com
wrote:
Pindar,
yes and it's a good idea to separate the hard/soft fork upgrades. The
point being here is that we're also establishing a process for the
community to self-determine the way forward in a transparent and
Some changes:
Votes need to be 100%, not 50.01%. That way small miners have a fair
chance. A 50.01% vote means large miners call the shots.
Users (people who make transactions) need to vote. A vote by a miner
shouldn't count without user votes. Fee incentives should attract
legitimate votes from
Pindar,
yes and it's a good idea to separate the hard/soft fork upgrades. The point
being here is that we're also establishing a process for the community to
self-determine the way forward in a transparent and verifiable manner.
What's not to like? :)
I'll probably have some time on Sunday
Vincent,
Some changes:
Votes need to be 100%, not 50.01%. That way small miners have a fair
chance. A 50.01% vote means large miners call the shots.
While I like the idea of possibly requiring more than 50%, you wouldn't
want to have a situation where a minority of uncooperative (or just
6 matches
Mail list logo
