📅 Original date posted:2015-06-12
📝 Original message: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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 650 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150612/ba7a2a93/attachment.sig>;
Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] /
npub1m2…a2np2
2023-06-07 15:37:29
in reply to nevent1q…yk3t
Author Public Key
npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2Seen on
wss://relay.noswhere.comPublished at
2023-06-07 15:37:29Event JSON
{
"id": "6e4b61d0100b305301a4557661b8797e152e2691aef2e5f4988fbe04ae8b354f",
"pubkey": "daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa",
"created_at": 1686152249,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"8a807127e1ae5b585bcc8f3578413a7d3eb1bd30e75c19cd4a3a0a256adcb61c",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"fb222d69bffa7413743cfd21c60233b069f7a88bf4fd946ea54b89a8f2228cd5",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-06-12\n📝 Original message:On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 02:36:31PM -0400, Matt Whitlock wrote:\n\u003e On Friday, 12 June 2015, at 7:34 pm, Peter Todd wrote:\n\u003e \u003e On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 02:22:36PM -0400, Matt Whitlock wrote:\n\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 \n\u003e \u003e \u003e \t0 0 = no preference (\"wildcard\" vote)\n\u003e \u003e \u003e \t0 1 = vote for the limit to remain the same\n\u003e \u003e \u003e \t1 0 = vote for the limit to be halved\n\u003e \u003e \u003e \t1 1 = vote for the limit to be doubled\n\u003e \u003e \u003e \n\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 \n\u003e \u003e Sounds like a good encoding to me. Taking the median of the three\n\u003e \u003e options, and throwing away \"don't care\" votes entirely, makes sense.\n\u003e \n\u003e I hope you mean the *plurality* of the three options after throwing away the \"don't cares,\" not the *median*.\n\nMedian ensures that voting \"no change\" is meaningful. If \"double\" + \"no\nchange\" = 66%-1, you'd expect the result to be \"no change\", not \"halve\"\"\nWith a plurality vote you'd end up with a halving that was supported by\na minority.\n\n-- \n'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n0000000000000000127ab1d576dc851f374424f1269c4700ccaba2c42d97e778\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 650 bytes\nDesc: Digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150612/ba7a2a93/attachment.sig\u003e",
"sig": "93104f4c97f0926d9b5dedde6dd441eaf5ea75dd5e7ae9f3e2353e973bb94ad8205c78993c9ed3daaf8e0ab39c91e403905b70e5075fb0c695ebe227e1a77550"
}