rich1.0npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2https://nostr.ae/npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-06-12 📝 Original message: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. > Incidentally, I love this idea, as it addresses a concern I immediately had with Jeff's proposal, which is that it hands control exclusively to the miners. And your proposal here fixes that shortcoming in a economically powerful way: miners lose out on fees if they don't represent the wishes of the users. Thanks! I personally expect disaster to ensue with this kind of proposal, but I'm less concerned if the disaster is something users explicitly allowed to happen in a consensual way. -- '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/20150612/935b2101/attachment.sig>