Some changes:

Votes need to be 100%, not 50.01%. That way small miners have a fair
chance. A 50.01% vote means large miners call the shots.

Users (people who make transactions) need to vote. A vote by a miner
shouldn't count without user votes. Fee incentives should attract
legitimate votes from miners. A cheating miner will be defeated by another
miner who includes those votes, and take the fees.

This lets wallet providers and exchanges cast votes (few wallets will
implement prompts and will just auto vote, so if you don't agree, switch
wallets. Vote with your wallet).

On Jun 3, 2015 12:34 PM, "Stephen Morse" <>

> Pindar,
> yes and it's a good idea to separate the hard/soft fork upgrades. The
>> point being here is that we're also establishing a process for the
>> community to self-determine the way forward in a transparent and verifiable
>> manner.
>> What's not to like? :)
>> I'll probably have some time on Sunday to help hack something up but I
>> don't think this is that heavy a coding lift? What am I missing?
> As Matt mentioned, many members of the bitcoin community would be hesitant
> about giving miners this much power. It essentially lets them vote to
> change the rules of the system. But miners are not the only part of this
> ecosystem, and they are not the only ones affected by the choice of block
> size limit, so they probably shouldn't be the only ones with a vote.
> Instead, we vote with the software we run, and all upgrade.
> So, while I think an idea like this has its merits, I would bet that it's
> fairly unlikely to get enough support to be merged into bitcoin core.
> Best,
> Stephen
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development mailing list

Reply via email to