rich1.0npub1rrxhl3h0rrxz0kad4mjjtyn8d836l7e0jvneqfn6rjkzwnsd7uksqrt399https://nostr.ae/npub1rrxhl3h0rrxz0kad4mjjtyn8d836l7e0jvneqfn6rjkzwnsd7uksqrt399njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-06-12 📝 Original message:For the purposes of finding the median, halve < same < double. It will only change if a majority of non-apathetic votes are for halve or a majority of non-apathetic votes are for double. On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Matt Whitlock <bip at mattwhitlock.name> wrote: > On Friday, 12 June 2015, at 7:44 pm, Peter Todd wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 02:36:31PM -0400, Matt Whitlock wrote: > > > On Friday, 12 June 2015, at 7:34 pm, Peter Todd wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > > > I hope you mean the *plurality* of the three options after throwing > away the "don't cares," not the *median*. > > > > Median ensures that voting "no change" is meaningful. If "double" + "no > > change" = 66%-1, you'd expect the result to be "no change", not "halve"" > > With a plurality vote you'd end up with a halving that was supported by > > a minority. > > Never 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. :) > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > -- J. Aaron Gustafson Cornell University '16 | Computer Science, Engineering | Mathematics, Arts & Sciences Vice President, Kappa Delta Rho jag426 at cornell.edu | Ithaca, New York -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150612/5da1e54c/attachment.html>