{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub17qxssk9sj2r7jswvh3y32e7vwz7mcckhz33gk9nurdmw0lhsfkgswupwet","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub17qxssk9sj2r7jswvh3y32e7vwz7mcckhz33gk9nurdmw0lhsfkgswupwet","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 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. :)"}