{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1rrxhl3h0rrxz0kad4mjjtyn8d836l7e0jvneqfn6rjkzwnsd7uksqrt399","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1rrxhl3h0rrxz0kad4mjjtyn8d836l7e0jvneqfn6rjkzwnsd7uksqrt399","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-06-12\n📝 Original message:For the purposes of finding the median, halve \u003c same \u003c double. It will only\nchange if a majority of non-apathetic votes are for halve or a majority of\nnon-apathetic votes are for double.\n\nOn Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Matt Whitlock \u003cbip at mattwhitlock.name\u003e\nwrote:\n\n\u003e On Friday, 12 June 2015, at 7:44 pm, Peter Todd wrote:\n\u003e \u003e On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 02:36:31PM -0400, Matt Whitlock wrote:\n\u003e \u003e \u003e On Friday, 12 June 2015, at 7:34 pm, Peter Todd wrote:\n\u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 02:22:36PM -0400, Matt Whitlock wrote:\n\u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e Why should miners only be able to vote for \"double the limit\" or\n\u003e \"halve\" the limit? If you're going to use bits, I think you need to use two\n\u003e bits:\n\u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e         0 0 = no preference (\"wildcard\" vote)\n\u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e         0 1 = vote for the limit to remain the same\n\u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e         1 0 = vote for the limit to be halved\n\u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e         1 1 = vote for the limit to be doubled\n\u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e User transactions would follow the same usage. In particular, a\n\u003e user vote of \"0 0\" (no preference) could be included in a block casting any\n\u003e vote, but a block voting \"0 0\" (no preference) could only contain\n\u003e transactions voting \"0 0\" as well.\n\u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e Sounds like a good encoding to me. Taking the median of the three\n\u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e options, and throwing away \"don't care\" votes entirely, makes sense.\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e \u003e I hope you mean the *plurality* of the three options after throwing\n\u003e away the \"don't cares,\" not the *median*.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e Median ensures that voting \"no change\" is meaningful. If \"double\" + \"no\n\u003e \u003e change\" = 66%-1, you'd expect the result to be \"no change\", not \"halve\"\"\n\u003e \u003e With a plurality vote you'd end up with a halving that was supported by\n\u003e \u003e a minority.\n\u003e\n\u003e Never mind. I think I've figured out what you're getting at, and you're\n\u003e right. We wouldn't want \"halve\" to win on a plurality just because the\n\u003e remaining majority of the vote was split between double and\n\u003e remain-the-same. Good catch. :)\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e ------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e Bitcoin-development mailing list\n\u003e Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\n\u003e https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development\n\u003e\n\n\n\n-- \nJ. Aaron Gustafson\nCornell University '16 | Computer Science, Engineering | Mathematics, Arts\n\u0026 Sciences\nVice President, Kappa Delta Rho\njag426 at cornell.edu | Ithaca, New York\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150612/5da1e54c/attachment.html\u003e"}