<unnamed>

Public Key

npub1rrxhl3h0rrxz0kad4mjjtyn8d836l7e0jvneqfn6rjkzwnsd7uksqrt399

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsp3ntlcmh33np8mwk6aef9jfnknca0lvhexfusyeapetp8fcxlwtgpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wd68ytnwv46qz9rhwden5te0wfjkccte9ejxzmt4wvhxjmcpp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mq0695c3

Publishing to

relay.nostr.net

relay.damus.io

nos.lol

Last Notes

2023-06-07 15:37:30 UTC

- 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>