rich1.0npub17qxssk9sj2r7jswvh3y32e7vwz7mcckhz33gk9nurdmw0lhsfkgswupwethttps://nostr.ae/npub17qxssk9sj2r7jswvh3y32e7vwz7mcckhz33gk9nurdmw0lhsfkgswupwetnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-06-12 📝 Original message: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*.