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
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
|
Return-Path: <opetruzel@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F74A111B
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 3 Sep 2015 20:16:02 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ob0-f173.google.com (mail-ob0-f173.google.com
[209.85.214.173])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E80B428F
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 3 Sep 2015 20:15:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by obqa2 with SMTP id a2so616143obq.3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 03 Sep 2015 13:15:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:cc:content-type;
bh=x+iq5Ui+fNcCA3Z9/GFgvTnkZRS/FfBlTxCcoZ5GA8I=;
b=m8pcy2RKL1rrFdeAYgyxN8OTEavVP7oHEvYEq9ygSZzGuUlg6s7jRlToJsYv5ab4xT
ChCZJULR65Plvs5CY55xqpO3OuX/h4LIWx6fnG1ddqP2YobB+rBn7nT8vAVqR9Qq7Etl
IECRSqvinv5BFxhTG+6XIWavcQ6SsOQRDBMaPpHmlX7IEhgFYmTDUgFMhu/RehuRA+ol
1TH3djmCqfO6V9bG4FurZqi/GqCB1/yQtO+W7wnqLzOUbpp0VqZhccXb5vtdIkB4GD6I
Hp8b78tDvGgHWq1qgL9yCNLjJMck9MIbW57mo/q5uMQPwbqNhexZmhHSFQhhODvtpZkx
BNoA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.98.40 with SMTP id ef8mr29586668oeb.7.1441311359166; Thu,
03 Sep 2015 13:15:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.57.195 with HTTP; Thu, 3 Sep 2015 13:15:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.57.195 with HTTP; Thu, 3 Sep 2015 13:15:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <55E8A246.7030102@bitcartel.com>
References: <CADm_WcZyK6LUcuKqSEuR-q0hTZOC3EdJsqY1HrS_ow0knDY=7A@mail.gmail.com>
<55E8A246.7030102@bitcartel.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 16:15:58 -0400
Message-ID: <CALhpmH0POEpJtAXPZdo92onCoiRFx6EwvNs=xpy-49_jRXgBHw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Oliver Petruzel <opetruzel@gmail.com>
To: Simon Liu <simon@bitcartel.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013a18229329ea051edd7317
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 100 specification
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2015 20:16:02 -0000
--089e013a18229329ea051edd7317
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
I agree with Simon's sentiments for question #1, and was actually going to
pose the same question. Non-votes seem like they may poison the well
mathematically, and counting them anyway seems to encourage a lack of
participation at a time when miners really need to be very much involved.
Since we're handing them even more control over the ecosystem with this
BIP, it would be nice to ensure they (all miners) seriously consider their
impact and role on a regular basis.
I'm curious why we couldn't/shouldn't simply drop the non-votes. (There may
be a great reason that I can't think of, but it's eluding me... LOL)
That said, I don't see any issue with counting votes from outside of the
range as the maximum/minimum accordingly (Simon's question #2). In fact,
such votes would be very interesting (worthy of further discussion) if they
begin to lean heavily in either direction.
V/r,
Oliver
On Sep 3, 2015 3:41 PM, "Simon Liu via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> Thoughts on this part of the proposal:
>
> "Absent/invalid votes are counted as votes for the current hardLimit.
> Out of range votes are counted as the nearest in-range value."
>
> 1. Why should an absent vote be considered a vote for the status quo? A
> non-voter should have zero impact on the result.
>
> 2. Why should out of range votes be counted? They're an invalid vote, a
> spoiled ballot as such, and thus it would be better if they were discarded.
>
> Regards,
> Simon
>
>
> On 09/02/2015 08:33 PM, Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > BIP 100 initial public
> > draft: https://github.com/jgarzik/bip100/blob/master/bip-0100.mediawiki
> >
> > Emphasis on "initial" This is a starting point for the usual open
> > source feedback/iteration cycle, not an endpoint that Must Be This Way.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> >
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
--089e013a18229329ea051edd7317
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<p dir=3D"ltr">I agree with Simon's sentiments for question #1, and was=
actually going to pose the same question. Non-votes seem like they may poi=
son the well mathematically, and counting them anyway seems to encourage a =
lack of participation at a time when miners really need to be very much inv=
olved. Since we're handing them even more control over the ecosystem wi=
th this BIP, it would be nice to ensure they (all miners) seriously conside=
r their impact and role on a regular basis. </p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">I'm curious why we couldn't/shouldn't simply dro=
p the non-votes. (There may be a great reason that I can't think of, bu=
t it's eluding me... LOL)</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">That said, I don't see any issue with counting votes fro=
m outside of the range as the maximum/minimum accordingly (Simon's ques=
tion #2). In fact, such votes would be very interesting (worthy of further =
discussion) if they begin to lean heavily in either direction.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">V/r,<br>
Oliver</p>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sep 3, 2015 3:41 PM, "Simon Liu via bitc=
oin-dev" <<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br type=3D"attribution=
"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:=
1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi Jeff,<br>
<br>
Thoughts on this part of the proposal:<br>
<br>
"Absent/invalid votes are counted as votes for the current hardLimit.<=
br>
Out of range votes are counted as the nearest in-range value."<br>
<br>
1. Why should an absent vote be considered a vote for the status quo?=C2=A0=
A<br>
non-voter should have zero impact on the result.<br>
<br>
2. Why should out of range votes be counted?=C2=A0 They're an invalid v=
ote, a<br>
spoiled ballot as such, and thus it would be better if they were discarded.=
<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Simon<br>
<br>
<br>
On 09/02/2015 08:33 PM, Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev wrote:<br>
> BIP 100 initial public<br>
> draft: <a href=3D"https://github.com/jgarzik/bip100/blob/master/bip-01=
00.mediawiki" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://github.com/jgarz=
ik/bip100/blob/master/bip-0100.mediawiki</a><br>
><br>
> Emphasis on "initial"=C2=A0 This is a starting point for the=
usual open<br>
> source feedback/iteration cycle, not an endpoint that Must Be This Way=
.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
> <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@l=
ists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
> <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-=
dev" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org=
/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
--089e013a18229329ea051edd7317--
|
