đź“… Original date posted:2015-06-14
📝 Original message:I definitely think we need some voting system for metaconsensus…but if we’re going to seriously consider this we should look at the problem much more generally. Using false choices doesn’t really help, though ;)
- Eric Lombrozo
> On Jun 13, 2015, at 10:13 PM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik at bitpay.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:08 AM, Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo at gmail.com <mailto:elombrozo at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 2) BIP100 has direct economic consequences…and particularly for miners. It lends itself to much greater corruptibility.
>
>
> What is the alternative? Have a Chief Scientist or Technical Advisory Board choose what is a proper fee, what is a proper level of decentralization, a proper growth factor?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150613/9edf8eb0/attachment.html>;
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150613/9edf8eb0/attachment.sig>;
Eric Lombrozo [ARCHIVE] /
npub1az…t2krq
2023-06-07 17:37:32
in reply to nevent1q…ngz5
Author Public Key
npub1azvhdrf9fu6n0tm7yez4j6zcxcedp2ct6nrcq3z74naqs7kgpk8s5t2krqPublished at
2023-06-07 17:37:32Event JSON
{
"id": "7aea8103b21d51d1d1b57c5817b669bd8f44fb78a6749ddd537b11c7602b2a9b",
"pubkey": "e899768d254f3537af7e26455968583632d0ab0bd4c780445eacfa087ac80d8f",
"created_at": 1686152252,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"8a807127e1ae5b585bcc8f3578413a7d3eb1bd30e75c19cd4a3a0a256adcb61c",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"4413f1982f67caffdd35f9d150ca400d7f6649fa05135cea790e2b0475836485",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"b25e10e25d470d9b215521b50da0dfe7a209bec7fedeb53860c3e180ffdc8c11"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-06-14\n📝 Original message:I definitely think we need some voting system for metaconsensus…but if we’re going to seriously consider this we should look at the problem much more generally. Using false choices doesn’t really help, though ;)\n\n- Eric Lombrozo\n\n\n\u003e On Jun 13, 2015, at 10:13 PM, Jeff Garzik \u003cjgarzik at bitpay.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:08 AM, Eric Lombrozo \u003celombrozo at gmail.com \u003cmailto:elombrozo at gmail.com\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e 2) BIP100 has direct economic consequences…and particularly for miners. It lends itself to much greater corruptibility.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e What is the alternative? Have a Chief Scientist or Technical Advisory Board choose what is a proper fee, what is a proper level of decentralization, a proper growth factor?\n\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150613/9edf8eb0/attachment.html\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 842 bytes\nDesc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150613/9edf8eb0/attachment.sig\u003e",
"sig": "37adf8b4712d5a96925edb205e161815d1dacc402d41c2022ceaab3de37c9dda8ced70ffbf3db81f049055729dbd9aeaa49f0b68b991f5f551fe416b53d9f9ea"
}