{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgyd","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgyd","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-05-28\n📝 Original message:\u003e\n\u003e Even a 2x rule (implying 800K max blocks) would, today, be squeezing out\n\u003e transactions / putting pressure to increase fees .....\n\u003e\n\u003e So my straw-man proposal would be:  max size 2x average size over last 144\n\u003e blocks, calculated at every block.\n\u003e\n\nIsn't that a step backwards, then? I see no reason for fee pressure to\nexist at the moment. All it's doing is turning away users for no purpose:\nmining isn't supported by fees, and the tiny fees we use right now seem to\nbe good enough to stop penny flooding.\n\nWhy not set the max size to be 20x the average size? Why 2x, given you just\npointed out that'd result in blocks shrinking rather than growing.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150528/1e8e17c3/attachment.html\u003e"}