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.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bitcoin-development mailing list

Reply via email to