{"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 Twenty is scary.\n\u003e\n\nTo whom? The only justification for the max size is DoS attacks, right?\nBack when Bitcoin had an average block size of 10kb, the max block size was\n100x the average. Things worked fine, nobody was scared.\n\nThe max block size is really a limit set by hardware capability, which is\nsomething that's difficult to measure in software. I think I preferred your\noriginal formula that guesstimated based on previous trends to one that\njust tries to follow some average.\n\nAs noted, many miners just accept the defaults. With your proposed change\ntheir target would effectively *drop* from 1mb to 800kb today, which seems\ncrazy. That's the exact opposite of what is needed right now.\n\nI am very skeptical about this idea.\n\n\n\u003e I don't think us developers should be deciding things like whether or not\n\u003e fees are too high, too low,\n\u003e\n\nMiners can already attempt to apply fee pressure by just not mining\ntransactions that they feel don't pay enough. Some sort of auto-cartel that\nattempts to restrict supply based on everyone looking at everyone else\nfeels overly complex and prone to strange situations: it looks a lot like\nsome kind of Mexican standoff to me.\n\nAdditionally, the justification for the block size limit was DoS by someone\nmining \"troll blocks\". It was never meant to be about fee pressure.\nResource management inside Bitcoin Core is certainly something to be\nhandled by developers.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150528/3359ad4a/attachment.html\u003e"}