Andrew [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-08-16 📝 Original message:On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at ...

📅 Original date posted:2015-08-16
📝 Original message:On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 9:46 AM, xor via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Hey folks,
>
> so you've been stressed with arguing about what to do with the block size
> for
> months now :(
>
> Why not realize that the unfruitful permanent need for administrators to
> tweak
> a magical, god-given (= Satoshi-given) constant is a *strong* indicator for
> something which should be delegated to a self-adjusting system instead?
>
> new_max_blocksize = some_averaging_function(previous_block_sizes);
>
Not necessarily some_averaging_function. Could also be something that
depends on how much work has been put in, i.e. make the miners do more
computational work if they want to add bigger blocks into the chain, and
the chain doesn't have to be the original chain, it could be a sidechain or
block extension, so as to not force people to upgrade.

> end_of_flamewar();
> continue_with_REAL_development();
>
> Systems which do not require any human intervention are always more
> beautiful,
> and especially when trying to design a decentralized P2P network :)
>
>
> Greetings,
> xor, a developer working for the Freenet anonymous P2P network
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>


--
PGP: B6AC 822C 451D 6304 6A28 49E9 7DB7 011C D53B 5647
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150816/4abc0b7f/attachment.html>;