I think that if a vote was free, no matter how much weight it carried, then
it could be easily bought and the vote manipulated. If the cost of the vote
was proportional to its weight, then it would be harder to manipulate the
vote.
I know I haven't explained that thoroughly, but as an analogy think
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 8 August 2015 11:03:04 GMT-04:00, Hector Chu wrote:
>Thanks for this Peter. It is quite long winded and complicated so I
>just
>wanted to clarify one particular point. In John's proposal, are the
>coins
>actually locked up, or are they still fr
Thanks for this Peter. It is quite long winded and complicated so I just
wanted to clarify one particular point. In John's proposal, are the coins
actually locked up, or are they still freely spendable post-vote? Otherwise
there is no real cost to casting votes. Locking coins up is related to the
t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 8 August 2015 02:27:35 GMT-04:00, Hector Chu via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
>Has there ever been any discussion of locking coins till a certain date
>for
>casting votes on an issue?
Yes, John Dillon proposed a very clever and viable blocksize vote sc
Also there may need to be weighting depending on how long the coins have
been locked for, to stop voting at the last minute having an undue
influence.
On 8 August 2015 at 07:27, Hector Chu wrote:
> Has there ever been any discussion of locking coins till a certain date
> for casting votes on an
Has there ever been any discussion of locking coins till a certain date for
casting votes on an issue?
Say that the date for counting votes is 3 months from now. Every one who
wants to cast a vote must lock coins until the vote closes (using CLTV). To
increase the weight of your vote, lock more co
