From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 652BEC29 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:18:24 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pa0-f50.google.com (mail-pa0-f50.google.com [209.85.220.50]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F12BC1B5 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:18:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pacdd16 with SMTP id dd16so135830896pac.2 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 14:18:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=wakd5VAS3XATjdrVjBt5FGfB2LrAI4l6P+7mh+Kt+sY=; b=DMK4fVUwfcpAkLNz4UZ9RyWED8i08OJorlPH8zmmMLt1zGtrCC8Pzln4KKf0Pcy96/ oNcpGifOU99zpjt+zQFv/9JGIYde/ekFK4c7ZsX9BUEVC4VI9DRJNy6pDqX5pkYjaUMz HjB9FsxS88POkqt307SU9MYg9NT5NWvxuN0owhGH0c80SuzaQquz5E5S4nasAhvoAYgq UsHeeFtl7+dC32XuSiVTqRAg1+BKNzLbTrtTzBgxxpkvoa+/KcpmBDLvK28goVEr25F+ AHPxkggo5ikLthlBbLKEp3oX32/j+nAMf/i7SOj9Xayzx5LRHUt0lstK3Fwv674jMplg GXkg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnRTOOydocFwn89Q2u7rvskTQD5rXKmw+sK3SF/earGFmzBRxkWlridGY5IG0NNzl5+lMFe X-Received: by 10.66.248.72 with SMTP id yk8mr59609709pac.112.1440537503686; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 14:18:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.18] (c-24-5-43-190.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [24.5.43.190]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id ft7sm22149419pdb.58.2015.08.25.14.18.16 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 25 Aug 2015 14:18:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <55DCDB98.80004@bitcartel.com> Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 14:18:16 -0700 From: Simon Liu User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Todd , Matt Whitlock References: <20150825201643.GC11083@muck> <1489961.GhSFCGzPRJ@crushinator> <20150825203744.GB3464@muck> In-Reply-To: <20150825203744.GB3464@muck> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org, greg@xiph.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Dynamically Controlled Bitcoin Block Size Max Cap [BIP 1xx - Draft] X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:18:24 -0000 I don't think this would work. If the rule is that one user can only have one vote, how do you prevent a user running multiple nodes? Also, how do you verify that a node is indeed a fully validating node with its own copy of the blockchain? On 08/25/2015 01:37 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > An interesting idea would be to design a voting mechanism such that only > users with access to validating nodes be able to vote - a fundemental > requirement for users to fully participate in Bitcoin's goverance. > > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >