rich1.0npub17ptfn7hft8a4s25t6449tdsnht7krskz8xsqh302vma0pjm6925qcdwqxxhttps://nostr.ae/npub17ptfn7hft8a4s25t6449tdsnht7krskz8xsqh302vma0pjm6925qcdwqxxnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-06-12 📝 Original message:I'm imagining in Peter's proposal it's not the transaction votes that are counted but only the votes in the blocks? So miners get to vote but they risk losing money by having to exclude counter voting transactions. But garbage transactions are no problem at all. Note that users that want to cast a vote "pay" for that by increased confirmation time (on average, hopefully slightly depending on the trend). On Fri, Jun 12, 2015, 20:27 Matt Whitlock <bip at mattwhitlock.name> wrote: > On Friday, 12 June 2015, at 11:20 am, Mark Friedenbach wrote: > > Peter it's not clear to me that your described protocol is free of miner > > influence over the vote, by artificially generating transactions which > they > > claim in their own blocks > > Miners could fill their blocks with garbage transactions that agree with > their vote, but this wouldn't bring them any real income, as they'd be > paying their own money as fees to themselves. To get real income, miners > would have to vote in accordance with real users. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150612/57d6fac0/attachment.html>