rich1.0npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2https://nostr.ae/npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-06-12 📝 Original message:On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 08:39:21PM +0200, Benjamin wrote: > This is a misguided idea, to say the least. If such a mechanism of of > user input would be possible, one would use it for transaction > verification in the first place. In proof-of-stake outcomes are > determined by vote by stake (that vote has very different > characteristics than vote by compute power). There is no such thing as > making it possible to determine what "users want". That's what the > proof-of-work mechanism does in the first place, only that it is now > unfortunately skewed/corrupted/(whatever you want to call it). Before > centralization the concept of "miners" didn't exist in Bitcoin and > miners were roughly identical to users. Peer-to-Peer implies only one > class of users. > > A big problem with such a vote (in PoW and PoS): miners get paid for > their work and have incentives to raise fees. Those who pay fees would > have no say in whether those fees are fair or not. Transaction > verification has to be roughly profitable, but there is no fixed > formula for determining profitability. Read John Dillon's proposal then, which via proof-of-stake explicitly approportions control of increases via % of Bitcoin owned. Anyway, representing everyone is never going to be easy, but at least this nVersion thing is very easy to implement. -- '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/20150612/9fb17544/attachment.sig>