{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub105eg2ny7gs448umtlsn4ns4slc5q3se8wpnzhtr22j8sgdrv2q7stlgz5a","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub105eg2ny7gs448umtlsn4ns4slc5q3se8wpnzhtr22j8sgdrv2q7stlgz5a","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-08-21\n📝 Original message:Interesting.\n\nUnless I misunderstand the proposal, you would have to factor a way to deal\nwith miner cartel behavior. A few emails every week and the larger miners\ncould collude to set prices.\n\nWith that figured, then your voting proposal could be triggered by a moving\nday block average which takes into account capacity for any given period,\nplus a level of headroom for unexpected spikes. The issue with this is\nforward planning is more important, especially when the moving average is\nlonger than a week.\n\nCredit card providers and retailers use a number of factors to plan for\ncapacity on a regional basis. From previous years figures, long-term\nweather forecasts, annual calendar events, one off events, etc. A global\ncurrency can't use many of these tools for forward planning.\n\nE.g. religious holidays are among the biggest events for transactions; if\nwe take Christmas, your proposal could work out a capacity during a quiet\nperiod in November leading to a downward adjustment which then sees\ntransactions getting maxed out during the two weeks before Christmas eve.\nYou could then have an upward adjustment, but people stop spending on\nChristmas day.\n\nThese are human factors that need to be considered.\n\nOn Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:22 PM, Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e I wanted to offer a potential way to adjust the block size limit in a\n\u003e democratic way without making it easy to game. This is meant only as a\n\u003e starting point for a general idea. Thresholds and exact figures and\n\u003e the details of the algorithm are up for debate, and possibly some\n\u003e formula based determination.\n\u003e\n\u003e The living document is currently a gist available at\n\u003e https://gist.github.com/btcdrak/1c3a323100a912b605b5\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e \u003cpre\u003e\n\u003e   BIP: XX\n\u003e   Title: Consensus based block size retargeting algorithm\n\u003e   Author: BtcDrak \u003cbtcdrak at gmail.com\u003e\n\u003e   Status: Draft\n\u003e   Type: Standards Track\n\u003e   Created: 2015-08-21\n\u003e \u003c/pre\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e ==Abstract==\n\u003e\n\u003e A method of altering the maximum allowed block size of the Bitcoin\n\u003e protocol using a consensus based approach.\n\u003e\n\u003e ==Motivation==\n\u003e\n\u003e There is a perception that Bitcoin cannot easily respond to raising\n\u003e the blocksize limit if popularity was to suddenly increase due to a\n\u003e mass adoption curve, because co-ordinating a hard fork takes\n\u003e considerable time, and being unable to respond in a timely manner\n\u003e would irreparably harm the credibility of bitcoin.\n\u003e\n\u003e Additionally, predetermined block size increases are problematic\n\u003e because they attempt to predict the future, and if too large could\n\u003e have unintended consequences like damaging the possibility for a fee\n\u003e market to develop as block subsidy decreases substantially over the\n\u003e next 9 years; introducing or exacerbating mining attack vectors; or\n\u003e somehow affect the network in unknown or unpredicted ways. Since fixed\n\u003e changes are hard to deploy, the damage could be extensive.\n\u003e\n\u003e Dynamic block size adjustments also suffer from the potential to be\n\u003e gamed by the larger hash power.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e ==Rationale==\n\u003e\n\u003e By introducing a cost to increase the block size ensures the mining\n\u003e community will collude to increase it only when there is a clear\n\u003e necessity, and reduce it when it is unnecessary. Rogue miners cannot\n\u003e force their wishes so easily because not only will they have to pay\n\u003e extra a difficulty target, then can be downvoted at no cost by the\n\u003e objecting hash power.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e ==Specification==\n\u003e\n\u003e The initial \"base block size limit\" shall be 1MB.\n\u003e\n\u003e Miners can vote for a block size increase by signalling the proposed\n\u003e percentage increase of the \"base block size limit\" in the coinbase\n\u003e field. For the vote to be considered valid the block they mine must\n\u003e meets a difficulty target which is proportionally larger than the\n\u003e standard difficulty target based on the percentage increase they voted\n\u003e for. If a miner does not vote, or the vote is invalid, it shall be\n\u003e counted as a vote for no change.\n\u003e\n\u003e Miners may vote the size down by signalling in the coinbase field\n\u003e without paying a difficulty penalty.\n\u003e\n\u003e Every 2016 blocks, the maximum allowed block size will be recalculated\n\u003e by the average of all votes in the last 2016 blocks, i.e. sum each\n\u003e vote from each block and divide by 2016 then multiply by the base\n\u003e block size limit. This will redefine the base block size limit for the\n\u003e next 2016 blocks.\n\u003e\n\u003e Blocks that are larger than the calculated base block size limit are\n\u003e invalid and MUST be rejected.\n\u003e\n\u003e The maximum change up or down each retargeting period shall be limited\n\u003e to 10% of the base block size limit.\n\u003e\n\u003e The maximum block size may not increase above 8MB.\n\u003e\n\u003e Votes shall be cast by adding the following human readable multiplier\n\u003e to the coinbase string “/BXn.nnn/” where valid votes would exist\n\u003e between the ranges “/BX0.900/” (10% decrease) and “/BX1.100/” (10%\n\u003e increase). “/BX1.000/” would be a vote for no change. Invalid votes\n\u003e will be counted as a vote for no change: “/BX1.000/”.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e ==Acknowledgements==\n\u003e\n\u003e This proposal is based on ideas and concepts derived from the writings\n\u003e of Meni Rosenfeld and Gregory Maxwell.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e ==Copyright==\n\u003e\n\u003e This work is placed in the public domain.\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150822/c9e0bb54/attachment.html\u003e"}