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. > Incidentally, I love this idea, as it addresses a concern I immediately had > with Jeff's proposal, which is that it hands control exclusively to the > miners. And your proposal here fixes that shortcoming in a economically > powerful way: miners lose out on fees if they don't represent the wishes of > the users. Thanks! I personally expect disaster to ensue with this kind of proposal, but I'm less concerned if the disaster is something users explicitly allowed to happen in a consensual way. -- 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 0000000000000000127ab1d576dc851f374424f1269c4700ccaba2c42d97e778
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
