Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Z3Twu-0006V7-0k for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 18:45:04 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org designates 62.13.149.56 as permitted sender) client-ip=62.13.149.56; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org; helo=outmail149056.authsmtp.com; Received: from outmail149056.authsmtp.com ([62.13.149.56]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1Z3Twt-0008EN-0t for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 18:45:03 +0000 Received: from mail-c235.authsmtp.com (mail-c235.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.235]) by punt17.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t5CIiuR0017677; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 19:44:56 +0100 (BST) Received: from muck ([85.255.235.202]) (authenticated bits=128) by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t5CIiqwA098883 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 12 Jun 2015 19:44:55 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 19:44:51 +0100 From: Peter Todd To: Matt Whitlock Message-ID: <20150612184450.GG19199@muck> References: <20150612181153.GB19199@muck> <23144512.HX7dfatEFr@crushinator> <20150612183421.GE19199@muck> <3287607.HcH18TyfSu@crushinator> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="9sSKoi6Rw660DLir" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3287607.HcH18TyfSu@crushinator> X-Server-Quench: 1ec1edf7-1133-11e5-b396-002590a15da7 X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR aAdMdwAUEkAaAgsB AmMbWl1eVFl7XGU7 Yw9PbwBYfEhNWhto UEpWR1pVCwQmRRly f0dfFWhyfg1OcH0+ bU9jXj5aCRd7IBIr RVNVFG4FeGZhPWUC AkNRcR5UcAFPdx8U a1UrBXRDAzANdhES HhM4ODE3eDlSNilR RRkIIFQOdA42BTMm Dw4FAThnHEtNTSE0 JB89K0wRVFoRKEIv PltpV18VKHc8 X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1023:706 X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255) X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 85.255.235.202/587 X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own anti-virus system. X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record X-Headers-End: 1Z3Twt-0008EN-0t Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] User vote in blocksize through fees X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 18:45:04 -0000 --9sSKoi6Rw660DLir Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 "hal= ve" the limit? If you're going to use bits, I think you need to use two bit= s: > > >=20 > > > 0 0 =3D no preference ("wildcard" vote) > > > 0 1 =3D vote for the limit to remain the same > > > 1 0 =3D vote for the limit to be halved > > > 1 1 =3D vote for the limit to be doubled > > >=20 > > > 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. > >=20 > > Sounds like a good encoding to me. Taking the median of the three > > options, and throwing away "don't care" votes entirely, makes sense. >=20 > 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" =3D 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. --=20 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 0000000000000000127ab1d576dc851f374424f1269c4700ccaba2c42d97e778 --9sSKoi6Rw660DLir Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQGrBAEBCACVBQJVeyigXhSAAAAAABUAQGJsb2NraGFzaEBiaXRjb2luLm9yZzAw MDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAxMjdhYjFkNTc2ZGM4NTFmMzc0NDI0ZjEyNjljNDcwMGNj YWJhMmM0MmQ5N2U3NzgvFIAAAAAAFQARcGthLWFkZHJlc3NAZ251cGcub3JncGV0 ZUBwZXRlcnRvZC5vcmcACgkQwIXyHOf0udx7lgf/ZB5EguYFakG2m6eC3n2CR9Ur 4NDPLUPpMmy2NByQ7KTWZD4ctuS80QYy8QPCA8VPA2w4/dCC26eqdpIjXnHkpDAa Q7fMTxpGxngxO3vmm9mJvswxQ1CqFtY88qz+J0UMr4RWQb10lMcyMNHK9EsLPCiW CcHnb7Mjemk7Y79utIkelyy47j/BaOaSPNlsgVo7NFTbPN4h8pO5pgUWqXit06SP VMUsKjyTzbxmiQADhhco5MAqvjzDLcgrlCrP3HmdRvncPbaGqrR5Pk2ULbDk5Gzp tjpqFD9glbgp79LObxY5WTbDB4dBQxZLIZUIpJtTLjq6+c5JiPrpTcVH2zyHjQ== =Z04x -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --9sSKoi6Rw660DLir--