Gavin Andresen [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-06-26 📝 Original message:On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-06-26
📝 Original message:On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Will <will.madden at novauri.com> wrote:
> Make the lazy miners' default choice grow at the hard cap growth rate and
> you should be ok if you want voting.
I think the default block size is an orthogonal issue to the max block size.
HOWEVER: I think changing the default 'target' block size from the current,
fixed 750K to the average of the size of the last N blocks would have some
nice properties. It is policy-neutral (we should get out of the business of
deciding the right block size and let the miners who care drive block size
up or down) and if there are a significant proportion of lazy miners going
with defaults it gives the system a healthy "fee pressure."
--
--
Gavin Andresen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150626/03235a77/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Will <will.madden at novauri.com> wrote:
> Make the lazy miners' default choice grow at the hard cap growth rate and
> you should be ok if you want voting.
I think the default block size is an orthogonal issue to the max block size.
HOWEVER: I think changing the default 'target' block size from the current,
fixed 750K to the average of the size of the last N blocks would have some
nice properties. It is policy-neutral (we should get out of the business of
deciding the right block size and let the miners who care drive block size
up or down) and if there are a significant proportion of lazy miners going
with defaults it gives the system a healthy "fee pressure."
--
--
Gavin Andresen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150626/03235a77/attachment.html>;