📅 Original date posted:2017-01-02 📝 Original message:On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at ...

t. khan [ARCHIVE] /

npub1lup…jqch

2023-06-07 17:55:16

in reply to nevent1q…6hz4

📅 Original date posted:2017-01-02
📝 Original message:On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:

> It would probably behave as an ever-increasing block size limit. Spam has
> typically filled blocks to the max, and miners have stopped self-enforcing
> reasonable limits.

Using the growth rate over the last year as a model (
https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?daysAverageString=14 ),
Block75 would also have frequently decreased the limit. Though, yes, more
transactions would equal larger blocks over time, but that's the entire
point of this.

What is your definition of "spam"? Also, can you point to data that
supports the hypothesis that spam is filling blocks?

> I doubt you'll get consensus for such a fundamentally broken proposal.
>
I certainly don't foresee any circumstance where I could reasonably support
> it... The block size limit exists to restrict miners; it makes no sense to
> put
> it in their control.
>

Specifically, what is broken about it?

There would still be a block size limit, it would just change slightly
every two weeks. I agree that miners shouldn't have control of this, and
Block75 doesn't give them any (at least none they can make a profit on).

- t.k.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170102/8116b645/attachment.html>;

Author Public Key

npub1lupuse8cysuanxcpq8h4d32359xxzedzjj83rmwv4yr9qxfmhtzqghjqch

Show more details

Published at

2023-06-07 17:55:16

Kind type

1 Short Text Note

Event JSON

{ "id": "21aa15e2907aa6653892c19b26cd3bcd76a73e80a707d942026e47ccc184b622", "pubkey": "ff03c864f82439d99b0101ef56c551a14c6165a2948f11edcca90650193bbac4", "created_at": 1686160516, "kind": 1, "tags": [ [ "e", "b7e914abb7ea7c07e3589db150a0458d594f4db07aa76365b13ea703b475ba29", "", "root" ], [ "e", "ef1028aab90fb7b9f4025db85c1823dbc6d5e60391e7ed334b09b63ca8e1e304", "", "reply" ], [ "p", "5a6d1f44482b67b5b0d30cc1e829b66a251f0dc99448377dbe3c5e0faf6c3803" ] ], "content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-01-02\n📝 Original message:On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Luke Dashjr \u003cluke at dashjr.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e It would probably behave as an ever-increasing block size limit. Spam has\n\u003e typically filled blocks to the max, and miners have stopped self-enforcing\n\u003e reasonable limits.\n\n\nUsing the growth rate over the last year as a model (\nhttps://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?daysAverageString=14 ),\nBlock75 would also have frequently decreased the limit. Though, yes, more\ntransactions would equal larger blocks over time, but that's the entire\npoint of this.\n\nWhat is your definition of \"spam\"? Also, can you point to data that\nsupports the hypothesis that spam is filling blocks?\n\n\n\u003e I doubt you'll get consensus for such a fundamentally broken proposal.\n\u003e\nI certainly don't foresee any circumstance where I could reasonably support\n\u003e it... The block size limit exists to restrict miners; it makes no sense to\n\u003e put\n\u003e it in their control.\n\u003e\n\nSpecifically, what is broken about it?\n\nThere would still be a block size limit, it would just change slightly\nevery two weeks. I agree that miners shouldn't have control of this, and\nBlock75 doesn't give them any (at least none they can make a profit on).\n\n- t.k.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170102/8116b645/attachment.html\u003e", "sig": "90240e4695c75f1cedd13301d4a285f0c3af234f33f90479ef6882b45a945dd38bbe2889b5bffe7435587c2aae0bf76233ebbac00143e398d5b9c791a1d94066" }