Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Yqhi3-00026V-2r for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 08 May 2015 12:48:55 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.215.51 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.215.51; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com; helo=mail-la0-f51.google.com; Received: from mail-la0-f51.google.com ([209.85.215.51]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Yqhi2-0002z9-54 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 08 May 2015 12:48:55 +0000 Received: by labbd9 with SMTP id bd9so51918699lab.2 for ; Fri, 08 May 2015 05:48:47 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.5.134 with SMTP id s6mr2648987las.99.1431089327780; Fri, 08 May 2015 05:48:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.90.75 with HTTP; Fri, 8 May 2015 05:48:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <16096345.A1MpJQQkRW@crushinator> Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 08:48:47 -0400 Message-ID: From: Gavin Andresen To: Joel Joonatan Kaartinen Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013d1010063b74051591737d X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (gavinandresen[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1Yqhi2-0002z9-54 Cc: Bitcoin Development Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposed alternatives to the 20MB step function X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 May 2015 12:48:55 -0000 --089e013d1010063b74051591737d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I like the bitcoin days destroyed idea. I like lots of the ideas that have been presented here, on the bitcointalk forums, etc etc etc. It is easy to make a proposal, it is hard to wade through all of the proposals. I'm going to balance that equation by completely ignoring any proposal that isn't accompanied by code that implements the proposal (with appropriate tests). However, I'm not the bottleneck-- you need to get the attention of the other committers and convince THEM: a) something should be done "now-ish" b) your idea is good We are stuck on (a) right now, I think. On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Joel Joonatan Kaartinen < joel.kaartinen@gmail.com> wrote: > Matt, > > It seems you missed my suggestion about basing the maximum block size on > the bitcoin days destroyed in transactions that are included in the block. > I think it has potential for both scaling as well as keeping up a constant > fee pressure. If tuned properly, it should both stop spamming and increase > block size maximum when there are a lot of real transactions waiting for > inclusion. > > - Joel > -- -- Gavin Andresen --089e013d1010063b74051591737d Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I like the bitcoin days destroyed idea.

I like lots of the ideas that have been presented here, on the bitcointalk= forums, etc etc etc.

It is easy to make a proposa= l, it is hard to wade through all of the proposals. I'm going to balanc= e that equation by completely ignoring any proposal that isn't accompan= ied by code that implements the proposal (with appropriate tests).

However, I'm not the bottleneck-- you need to get the = attention of the other committers and convince THEM:

a) something should be done "now-ish"
b) yo= ur idea is good

We are stuck on (a) right no= w, I think.


On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Joel Joonatan Kaartinen <joel.kaartinen@gmail.com> wrote:
Matt,

It seems you = missed my suggestion about basing the maximum block size on the bitcoin day= s destroyed in transactions that are included in the block. I think it has = potential for both scaling as well as keeping up a constant fee pressure. I= f tuned properly, it should both stop spamming and increase block size maxi= mum when there are a lot of real transactions waiting for inclusion.

<= span class=3D"HOEnZb">- Joel


--
--
Gavin Andresen
--089e013d1010063b74051591737d--