📅 Original date posted:2015-06-12
📝 Original message:On Friday, 12 June 2015, at 7:34 pm, Peter Todd wrote:
> 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.
I hope you mean the *plurality* of the three options after throwing away the "don't cares," not the *median*.
Matt Whitlock [ARCHIVE] /
npub17q…upwet
2023-06-07 17:37:28
in reply to nevent1q…dl0d
Author Public Key
npub17qxssk9sj2r7jswvh3y32e7vwz7mcckhz33gk9nurdmw0lhsfkgswupwetPublished at
2023-06-07 17:37:28Event JSON
{
"id": "6b3e75cb05f0d505fb77b44309322599b9b97977bb6836588b065abd7580e286",
"pubkey": "f00d0858b09287e941ccbc491567cc70bdbc62d714628b167c1b76e7fef04d91",
"created_at": 1686152248,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"8a807127e1ae5b585bcc8f3578413a7d3eb1bd30e75c19cd4a3a0a256adcb61c",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"d17274246fa758270a82856d1de435f62e1ea4a29f058e2570f336b4354ebb49",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-06-12\n📝 Original message:On Friday, 12 June 2015, at 7:34 pm, Peter Todd wrote:\n\u003e On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 02:22:36PM -0400, Matt Whitlock wrote:\n\u003e \u003e 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:\n\u003e \u003e \n\u003e \u003e \t0 0 = no preference (\"wildcard\" vote)\n\u003e \u003e \t0 1 = vote for the limit to remain the same\n\u003e \u003e \t1 0 = vote for the limit to be halved\n\u003e \u003e \t1 1 = vote for the limit to be doubled\n\u003e \u003e \n\u003e \u003e 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.\n\u003e \n\u003e Sounds like a good encoding to me. Taking the median of the three\n\u003e options, and throwing away \"don't care\" votes entirely, makes sense.\n\nI hope you mean the *plurality* of the three options after throwing away the \"don't cares,\" not the *median*.",
"sig": "d16b06cd7fe95b973edf3b2f6905653ab7d22ab16e09ffad7f8cb08c1032cdf6eba3cb444bcf9fb65a79a03f6d9671d08b77f4de3219982416749dad6cea4b45"
}