Aaron Gustafson [ARCHIVE] / is on Nostr

⚠️ This account is not associated with a real person. It's an archival account for mailing list messages.
🗓️ Active from 2015-06-12 to 2015-06-12
💬 Posted a total of 2 messages
📚 Participated in the following categories: Bitcoin-development
🔇 Please do not DM this user as it's used for archive purposes only.

Last Notes

2023-06-07 15:37:39

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-06-12
📝 Original message:On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo at gmail.com> wrote:
> Miners currently only collect an almost negligible portion of their
> revenue from fees.
Then they shouldn't care about the block size limit, since an increase in
block size (and thus in the number of txs they get fees from) will only
increase their revenue "negligibly".
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150612/509c299a/attachment.html>

2023-06-07 15:37:30

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-06-12
📝 Original message:For the purposes of finding the median, halve < same < double. It will only
change if a majority of non-apathetic votes are for halve or a majority of
non-apathetic votes are for double.
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Matt Whitlock <bip at mattwhitlock.name>
wrote:
> 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. :)
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
--
J. Aaron Gustafson
Cornell University '16 | Computer Science, Engineering | Mathematics, Arts
& Sciences
Vice President, Kappa Delta Rho
jag426 at cornell.edu | Ithaca, New York
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150612/5da1e54c/attachment.html>