MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CADvTj4rC6OyCFCwpExRdRF_ZVU_ONjtb3PycR3T_fkm6d=b_Wg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGCNRJqdu7DMC+AMR4mYKRAYStRMKVGqbnjtEfmzcoeMij5u=A@mail.gmail.com>
	<c318f76d-0904-2e1b-453b-60179f8209bb@sky-ip.org>
	<CAGCNRJrLM2ZR9qCvuNfyr2mUk50szzHnG-crmpv_3cH=xGxYOg@mail.gmail.com>
	<d691b6f8-0c15-d293-0027-dcce145fbe8e@sky-ip.org>
	<CAGCNRJo_VE9nBhP=oY7hV0UJ-OSuTBxu+Tf28_utJW8qi7rzxg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADvTj4rC6OyCFCwpExRdRF_ZVU_ONjtb3PycR3T_fkm6d=b_Wg@mail.gmail.com>
From: "t. khan" <teekhan42@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2016 16:40:21 -0500
Message-ID: <CAGCNRJqEVo6cMOLeENNue3=2mAHnWL2ViUKXVXAke_W0CXKKEg@mail.gmail.com>
To: James Hilliard <james.hilliard1@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11457f28937647054368d54c
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Managing block size the same way we do difficulty
 (aka Block75)
Precedence: list

--001a11457f28937647054368d54c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 3:31 PM, James Hilliard <james.hilliard1@gmail.com>
wrote:

> What's most likely to happen is miners will max out the blocks they
> mine simply to try and get as many transaction fees as possible like
> they are doing right now(there will be a backlog of transactions at
> any block size). Having the block size double every year would likely
> cause major problems and this proposal allows over a 7x increase it
> seems.


Block75 is not exponential scaling. It's true the max theoretical increase
in the first year would be 7x, but the next year would be a max of 2x, and
the next could only increase by 50% and so on.

However, to reach the max in the first year: 1) ALL blocks would have to be
100% full and 2) transactions would have to increase at the same rate. We'd
have to be doing 2.1 million transactions a day within a year to make that
happen, and would therefore need blocks to be that big.

Realistically, max block size will grow (and shrink) at a much slower rate
... even more so with SegWit.


>  The main problem with this proposal I think is that users effectively

have no way to stop the miners from increasing block size
> continuously.


Yes they could, simply by not sending transactions. Users don't care at all
about block size. They just want their transactions to be fast and
relatively cheap.

-t.k.

--001a11457f28937647054368d54c
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra">On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 3:3=
1 PM, James Hilliard <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:james.hilliard=
1@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">james.hilliard1@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wro=
te:<br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">What&#39=
;s most likely to happen is miners will max out the blocks they<br>
mine simply to try and get as many transaction fees as possible like<br>
they are doing right now(there will be a backlog of transactions at<br>
any block size). Having the block size double every year would likely<br>
cause major problems and this proposal allows over a 7x increase it<br>
seems.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Block75 is not exponential scaling. =
It&#39;s true the max theoretical increase in the first year would be 7x, b=
ut the next year would be a max of 2x, and the next could only increase by =
50% and so on.</div><div><br></div><div>However, to reach the max in the fi=
rst year: 1) ALL blocks would have to be 100% full and 2) transactions woul=
d have to increase at the same rate. We&#39;d have to be doing 2.1 million =
transactions a day within a year to make that happen, and would therefore n=
eed blocks to be that big.</div><div><br></div><div>Realistically, max bloc=
k size will grow (and shrink) at a much slower rate ... even more so with S=
egWit.</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"mar=
gin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">=C2=A0The main =
problem with this proposal I think is that users effectively</blockquote><b=
lockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px =
#ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
have no way to stop the miners from increasing block size<br>
continuously.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes they could, simply by not=
 sending transactions. Users don&#39;t care at all about block size. They j=
ust want their transactions to be fast and relatively cheap.</div><div><br>=
</div><div>-t.k.</div></div></div></div>

--001a11457f28937647054368d54c--