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
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
|
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 <pete@petertodd.org>) 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 <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name>
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: <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 18:45:04 -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-----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==
=Z04x
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--9sSKoi6Rw660DLir--
|
