{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1s4lj77xuzcu7wy04afcr487f0r3za0f8n2775xrpkld2sv639mjqsd44kw","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1s4lj77xuzcu7wy04afcr487f0r3za0f8n2775xrpkld2sv639mjqsd44kw","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-05-28\n📝 Original message:On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 1:05 PM, Mike Hearn \u003cmike at plan99.net\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Isn't that a step backwards, then? I see no reason for fee pressure to\n\u003e\u003e exist at the moment. All it's doing is turning away users for no purpose:\n\u003e\u003e mining isn't supported by fees, and the tiny fees we use right now seem to\n\u003e\u003e be good enough to stop penny flooding.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Why not set the max size to be 20x the average size? Why 2x, given you\n\u003e just pointed out that'd result in blocks shrinking rather than growing.\n\u003e\n\nTwenty is scary.\n\nAnd two is a very neutral number: if 50% of hashpower want the max size to\ngrow as fast as possible and 50% are dead-set opposed to any increase in\nmax size, then half produce blocks 2 times as big, half produce empty\nblocks, and the max size doesn't change. If it was 20, then a small\nminority of miners could force a max size increase.  (if it is less than 2,\nthen a minority of minors can force the block size down)\n\n\nAs for whether there \"should\" be fee pressure now or not: I have no\nopinion, besides \"we should make block propagation faster so there is no\ntechnical reason for miners to produce tiny blocks.\" I don't think us\ndevelopers should be deciding things like whether or not fees are too high,\ntoo low, .....\n\n-- \n--\nGavin Andresen\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150528/ef414a76/attachment.html\u003e"}