-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Thinking about this a little more, I guess it does not hurt to build some
kind of voting system into the clients. But I think it's more useful for
straw polls. For example a bug fix 100% of people should agree on. A
protocol optimization
On 10 June 2013 06:09, John Dillon john.dillon...@googlemail.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
It has been suggested that we leave the decision of what the blocksize to
be
entirely up to miners. However this leaves a parameter that affects every
Bitcoin participant
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 01:25:05PM -0400, Alan Reiner wrote:
to sign votes. Not only that, but it would require them to reveal their
public key, which while isn't technically
Reserving my judgement until I've though about it more (design by committee
scares me, and this voting sounds expensive), I think the SPV-verifiable
moving median can be done by binning the space of block size limits, and
for each node in the UTXO tree, a value for each bin is stored which is the
On 10 June 2013 06:09, John Dillon john.dillon...@googlemail.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
It has been suggested that we leave the decision of what the blocksize to
be
entirely up to miners. However this leaves a parameter that affects every
Bitcoin participant
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Melvin Carvalho
melvincarva...@gmail.com wrote:
However, Bitcoin's fundamental philosophy was one CPU one vote.
This is perhaps the largest misconception that keeps being repeated.
Bitcoin is not a democracy; it is a zero-trust system. The rules are
set in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
John,
What you are recommending is a drastic change that the conservative
bitcoin developers probably wouldn't get behind (but let's see). However
proof-of-stake voting on protocol soft-forks has vast implications even
beyond the block size limit.
One major problem I see with this, no matter how well-thought-out it is,
it's unlikely that those with money will participate. Those with the
most stake, likely have their private keys behind super-secure
accessibility barriers, and are not likely to go through the effort just
to sign votes. Not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
It has been suggested that we leave the decision of what the blocksize to be
entirely up to miners. However this leaves a parameter that affects every
Bitcoin participant in the control of a small minority. Of course we can not
force miners to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 4:44 AM, Edmund Broadley rebr...@gmail.com wrote:
I really like this idea. I also like that users with no clue will leave
their vote to the default chosen by the software developers, which hopefully
will be 1MB. I like how
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 04:09:26AM +, John Dillon wrote:
My general comments on the idea are that while it's hard to say if a
vote by proof-of-stake is really representative, it's likely the closest
thing we'll ever get to a fair vote. Proof-of-stake is certainely better
than just letting
11 matches
Mail list logo
