Mike Hearn [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-05-28 📝 Original message:> > Even a 2x rule ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-05-28
📝 Original message:>
> Even a 2x rule (implying 800K max blocks) would, today, be squeezing out
> transactions / putting pressure to increase fees .....
>
> So my straw-man proposal would be: max size 2x average size over last 144
> blocks, calculated at every block.
>
Isn't that a step backwards, then? I see no reason for fee pressure to
exist at the moment. All it's doing is turning away users for no purpose:
mining isn't supported by fees, and the tiny fees we use right now seem to
be good enough to stop penny flooding.
Why not set the max size to be 20x the average size? Why 2x, given you just
pointed out that'd result in blocks shrinking rather than growing.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150528/1e8e17c3/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:>
> Even a 2x rule (implying 800K max blocks) would, today, be squeezing out
> transactions / putting pressure to increase fees .....
>
> So my straw-man proposal would be: max size 2x average size over last 144
> blocks, calculated at every block.
>
Isn't that a step backwards, then? I see no reason for fee pressure to
exist at the moment. All it's doing is turning away users for no purpose:
mining isn't supported by fees, and the tiny fees we use right now seem to
be good enough to stop penny flooding.
Why not set the max size to be 20x the average size? Why 2x, given you just
pointed out that'd result in blocks shrinking rather than growing.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150528/1e8e17c3/attachment.html>;