1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <bip@mattwhitlock.name>) id 1Z3U64-0004en-Ak
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 12 Jun 2015 18:54:32 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from resqmta-ch2-06v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.38])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Z3U63-000541-GB
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 12 Jun 2015 18:54:32 +0000
Received: from resomta-ch2-16v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.112])
by resqmta-ch2-06v.sys.comcast.net with comcast
id fWu21q0082S2Q5R01WuSvd; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 18:54:26 +0000
Received: from crushinator.localnet
([IPv6:2601:186:c000:825e:e9f4:8901:87c7:24a0])
by resomta-ch2-16v.sys.comcast.net with comcast
id fWuR1q00A4eLRLv01WuRcm; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 18:54:26 +0000
From: Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 14:54:25 -0400
Message-ID: <1900349.Piv8ps0gCz@crushinator>
User-Agent: KMail/4.14.9 (Linux/3.18.12-gentoo; KDE/4.14.9; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <20150612184450.GG19199@muck>
References: <20150612181153.GB19199@muck> <3287607.HcH18TyfSu@crushinator>
<20150612184450.GG19199@muck>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
no trust [69.252.207.38 listed in list.dnswl.org]
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1Z3U63-000541-GB
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: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 18:54:32 -0000
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. :)
|
