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 34918E3C for ; Thu, 3 Sep 2015 19:40:56 +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 C817A199 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 2015 19:40:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: by padfa1 with SMTP id fa1so13221704pad.1 for ; Thu, 03 Sep 2015 12:40:55 -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 :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=XR4GYm/W5bWIfFGmWJP6Mri890riSEEqTPK2VQvaln8=; b=WGoNL4yR/1a3yzWvlYncICphCeNSRp4COZvfpcKbhjtDRWmRDPRmcYJvWWu6FbOy8l ufllHEDaMpfKIT3D1Sjre1rrt46hCIuPbb0RAB2zl2/dlISlhvwSkO9Yc++Hq/7eY2C5 iWYCORQ2sVBx6UYzlKH9TCrcyis3RSYU1fyAMVqShX5L8+VVz5/IBv9leut6OO40hPwr oyUAYE1vkuWRLlZTnScfXxLljQ8l+bwFdOT98VDxcHhJlSJDomFh/KqGuYER8aL2ZFTl ZFJS6EDWi4XdlKVwsf8I2cbmEIENfR4qa+tWg8d4leNwDvLLwy1891pKX/Q94KaL8K1m FDfQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlSAXvNLiey9U9rhe5NeOl0o1yfXGChpY5D0HJgHo0HAUY3/hvOF9NKL8gLBWK/XzcAI5IR X-Received: by 10.68.248.102 with SMTP id yl6mr72166875pbc.66.1441309255475; Thu, 03 Sep 2015 12:40:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.13] (c-24-5-43-190.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [24.5.43.190]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id hz5sm26145327pbb.39.2015.09.03.12.40.54 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 03 Sep 2015 12:40:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <55E8A246.7030102@bitcartel.com> Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2015 12:40:54 -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: Jeff Garzik , Bitcoin development mailing list References: In-Reply-To: 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 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 100 specification 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: Thu, 03 Sep 2015 19:40:56 -0000 Hi Jeff, Thoughts on this part of the proposal: "Absent/invalid votes are counted as votes for the current hardLimit. Out of range votes are counted as the nearest in-range value." 1. Why should an absent vote be considered a vote for the status quo? A non-voter should have zero impact on the result. 2. Why should out of range votes be counted? They're an invalid vote, a spoiled ballot as such, and thus it would be better if they were discarded. Regards, Simon On 09/02/2015 08:33 PM, Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev wrote: > BIP 100 initial public > draft: https://github.com/jgarzik/bip100/blob/master/bip-0100.mediawiki > > Emphasis on "initial" This is a starting point for the usual open > source feedback/iteration cycle, not an endpoint that Must Be This Way. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >