📅 Original date posted:2015-06-12
📝 Original message:On Friday, 12 June 2015, at 7:44 pm, Peter Todd wrote:
> 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.
Never mind. I think I've figured out what you're getting at, and you're right. We wouldn't want "halve" to win on a plurality just because the remaining majority of the vote was split between double and remain-the-same. Good catch. :)
Matt Whitlock [ARCHIVE] /
npub17q…upwet
2023-06-07 15:37:30
in reply to nevent1q…v23p
Author Public Key
npub17qxssk9sj2r7jswvh3y32e7vwz7mcckhz33gk9nurdmw0lhsfkgswupwetSeen on
wss://relay.nostr.bandPublished at
2023-06-07 15:37:30Event JSON
{
"id": "ff975ca6be34d5502935743e76fd48ed22b52f946350e7b3896fc6b311088e95",
"pubkey": "f00d0858b09287e941ccbc491567cc70bdbc62d714628b167c1b76e7fef04d91",
"created_at": 1686152250,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"8a807127e1ae5b585bcc8f3578413a7d3eb1bd30e75c19cd4a3a0a256adcb61c",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"51bc772f01d98159d074190c19e6be4996da214c8fddc1be6742d313ca21e5db",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"f00d0858b09287e941ccbc491567cc70bdbc62d714628b167c1b76e7fef04d91"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-06-12\n📝 Original message:On Friday, 12 June 2015, at 7:44 pm, Peter Todd wrote:\n\u003e On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 02:36:31PM -0400, Matt Whitlock wrote:\n\u003e \u003e On Friday, 12 June 2015, at 7:34 pm, Peter Todd wrote:\n\u003e \u003e \u003e On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 02:22:36PM -0400, Matt Whitlock wrote:\n\u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e 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:\n\u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e \n\u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e \t0 0 = no preference (\"wildcard\" vote)\n\u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e \t0 1 = vote for the limit to remain the same\n\u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e \t1 0 = vote for the limit to be halved\n\u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e \t1 1 = vote for the limit to be doubled\n\u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e \n\u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e 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.\n\u003e \u003e \u003e \n\u003e \u003e \u003e Sounds like a good encoding to me. Taking the median of the three\n\u003e \u003e \u003e options, and throwing away \"don't care\" votes entirely, makes sense.\n\u003e \u003e \n\u003e \u003e I hope you mean the *plurality* of the three options after throwing away the \"don't cares,\" not the *median*.\n\u003e \n\u003e Median ensures that voting \"no change\" is meaningful. If \"double\" + \"no\n\u003e change\" = 66%-1, you'd expect the result to be \"no change\", not \"halve\"\"\n\u003e With a plurality vote you'd end up with a halving that was supported by\n\u003e a minority.\n\nNever mind. I think I've figured out what you're getting at, and you're right. We wouldn't want \"halve\" to win on a plurality just because the remaining majority of the vote was split between double and remain-the-same. Good catch. :)",
"sig": "294946e03393f470135c3e0019d8ac1fcee9be336f690454d27e7afa8618411cce616e6cbe2bca7e2eaac76ddb11f321646cbd8db8ee4cbb829177611755dd15"
}