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 0F74A111B for ; Thu, 3 Sep 2015 20:16:02 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ob0-f173.google.com (mail-ob0-f173.google.com [209.85.214.173]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E80B428F for ; Thu, 3 Sep 2015 20:15:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: by obqa2 with SMTP id a2so616143obq.3 for ; Thu, 03 Sep 2015 13:15:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=x+iq5Ui+fNcCA3Z9/GFgvTnkZRS/FfBlTxCcoZ5GA8I=; b=m8pcy2RKL1rrFdeAYgyxN8OTEavVP7oHEvYEq9ygSZzGuUlg6s7jRlToJsYv5ab4xT ChCZJULR65Plvs5CY55xqpO3OuX/h4LIWx6fnG1ddqP2YobB+rBn7nT8vAVqR9Qq7Etl IECRSqvinv5BFxhTG+6XIWavcQ6SsOQRDBMaPpHmlX7IEhgFYmTDUgFMhu/RehuRA+ol 1TH3djmCqfO6V9bG4FurZqi/GqCB1/yQtO+W7wnqLzOUbpp0VqZhccXb5vtdIkB4GD6I Hp8b78tDvGgHWq1qgL9yCNLjJMck9MIbW57mo/q5uMQPwbqNhexZmhHSFQhhODvtpZkx BNoA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.98.40 with SMTP id ef8mr29586668oeb.7.1441311359166; Thu, 03 Sep 2015 13:15:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.76.57.195 with HTTP; Thu, 3 Sep 2015 13:15:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.76.57.195 with HTTP; Thu, 3 Sep 2015 13:15:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <55E8A246.7030102@bitcartel.com> References: <55E8A246.7030102@bitcartel.com> Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 16:15:58 -0400 Message-ID: From: Oliver Petruzel To: Simon Liu Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013a18229329ea051edd7317 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,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 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 20:16:02 -0000 --089e013a18229329ea051edd7317 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I agree with Simon's sentiments for question #1, and was actually going to pose the same question. Non-votes seem like they may poison the well mathematically, and counting them anyway seems to encourage a lack of participation at a time when miners really need to be very much involved. Since we're handing them even more control over the ecosystem with this BIP, it would be nice to ensure they (all miners) seriously consider their impact and role on a regular basis. I'm curious why we couldn't/shouldn't simply drop the non-votes. (There may be a great reason that I can't think of, but it's eluding me... LOL) That said, I don't see any issue with counting votes from outside of the range as the maximum/minimum accordingly (Simon's question #2). In fact, such votes would be very interesting (worthy of further discussion) if they begin to lean heavily in either direction. V/r, Oliver On Sep 3, 2015 3:41 PM, "Simon Liu via bitcoin-dev" < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --089e013a18229329ea051edd7317 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I agree with Simon's sentiments for question #1, and was= actually going to pose the same question. Non-votes seem like they may poi= son the well mathematically, and counting them anyway seems to encourage a = lack of participation at a time when miners really need to be very much inv= olved. Since we're handing them even more control over the ecosystem wi= th this BIP, it would be nice to ensure they (all miners) seriously conside= r their impact and role on a regular basis.

I'm curious why we couldn't/shouldn't simply dro= p the non-votes. (There may be a great reason that I can't think of, bu= t it's eluding me... LOL)

That said, I don't see any issue with counting votes fro= m outside of the range as the maximum/minimum accordingly (Simon's ques= tion #2). In fact, such votes would be very interesting (worthy of further = discussion) if they begin to lean heavily in either direction.

V/r,
Oliver

On Sep 3, 2015 3:41 PM, "Simon Liu via bitc= oin-dev" <= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Hi Jeff,

Thoughts on this part of the proposal:

"Absent/invalid votes are counted as votes for the current hardLimit.<= br> 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?=C2=A0= A
non-voter should have zero impact on the result.

2. Why should out of range votes be counted?=C2=A0 They're an invalid v= ote, 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/jgarz= ik/bip100/blob/master/bip-0100.mediawiki
>
> Emphasis on "initial"=C2=A0 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@l= ists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org= /mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--089e013a18229329ea051edd7317--