Author: Benjamin 2015-06-12 18:39:21
Published on: 2015-06-12T18:39:21+00:00
The discussion is about the possibility of a mechanism that allows users to have input in transaction verification. Proof-of-stake outcomes are determined by stake, which is different from vote by compute power. The proof-of-work mechanism determines what "users want", but it has been skewed/corrupted. Miners get paid for their work and have incentives to raise fees, while those who pay fees have no say in whether those fees are fair or not. Transaction verification has to be roughly profitable, but there is no fixed formula for determining profitability.A proposal was made to use bits to allow users to vote on whether the limit should remain the same, be halved, or be doubled. Users could include a wildcard vote of "0 0" (no preference) in a block casting any vote, but a block voting "0 0" (no preference) could only contain transactions voting "0 0" as well. The proposal addresses a concern with Jeff's proposal, which was seen to give control exclusively to miners. Miners would lose out on fees if they don't represent the wishes of the users. However, there is a concern that this type of proposal could lead to disaster, although users would explicitly allow it to happen in a consensual way. Peter Todd suggested that users could pay for votes to give them a way to directly influence the outcome.
Updated on: 2023-06-09T22:55:32.823369+00:00