3 ms·
That would not be correct entirely. Earlier they had 90% as the consensus limit, which they have now brought down to 75% and have suggested driving consensus in
by kang 11y ago
That would not be correct entirely. Earlier they had 90% as the consensus limit, which they have now brought down to 75% and have suggested driving consensus in regular milestones if that doesn't succeed. Surely they want the fork.
- jackgavigan 11y ago90% was Jeff Garzik's suggestion. Gavin chose 75% "so that one large mining pool does not have effective veto power over a blocksize increase".
- Bootvis 11y agoAm I missing something or is that a rather weak argument? If the hashers in that large mining pool don't like the veto, they'll vote with their feet and leave the pool. But if the pool actually has 25% or more of the hashing power it is a clear sign of no consensus. It seems to me that the operator of a pool is not really in control of the computing power.
- jnbiche 11y agoCombined, the Chinese mining pools have well over 25% of the hashrate using only in-house hashing. I think this was the political way of denying a veto to the Chinese mining operations (who frequently collaborate and will likely vote in block).
- jackgavigan 11y ago>..if the pool actually has 25% or more of the hashing power it is a clear sign of no consensus. Gavin clearly agrees. However, I guess he doesn't think that a pool (or a miner like BitFury) that has between 10% and 25% of the hashing power should have the power of veto.
- kang 11y agoThis is not a one time vote. This is voting over a significant period of time and powers are not fixed.