{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1swfeusu3ua9trup00qcnrgc2yndksyvgku4epk5tec7u4fmrez6qxpul5t","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1swfeusu3ua9trup00qcnrgc2yndksyvgku4epk5tec7u4fmrez6qxpul5t","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-05-08\n📝 Original message:Adaptive schedules, i.e. those where block size limit depends not only on\nblock height, but on other parameters as well, are surely attractive in the\nsense that the system can adapt to the actual use, but they also open a\npossibility of a manipulation.\n\nE.g. one of mining companies might try to bankrupt other companies by\nmaking mining non-profitable. To do that they will accept transactions with\nridiculously low fees (e.g. 1 satoshi per transaction). Of course, they\nwill suffer losees themselves, but the they might be able to survive that\nif they have access to financial resources. (E.g. companies backed by banks\nand such will have an advantage).\nOnce competitors close down their mining operations, they can drive fees\nupwards.\n\nSo if you don't want to open room for manipulation (which is very hard to\nanalyze), it is better to have a block size hard limit which depends only\non block height.\nOn top of that there might be a soft limit which is enforced by the\nmajority of miners.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150508/e290f012/attachment.html\u003e"}