{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1vtwuk4rjyj6zrq3tv2z9lvdm6a7g8zujf0gz9q2vljlztdaqw36sjjsjpg","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1vtwuk4rjyj6zrq3tv2z9lvdm6a7g8zujf0gz9q2vljlztdaqw36sjjsjpg","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-05-08\n📝 Original message:On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 2:20 AM, Matt Whitlock \u003cbip at mattwhitlock.name\u003e wrote:\n\u003e - Perhaps the hard block size limit should be a function of the actual block sizes over some\n\u003e trailing sampling period. For example, take the median block size among the most recent\n\u003e 2016 blocks and multiply it by 1.5. This allows Bitcoin to scale up gradually and organically,\n\u003e rather than having human beings guessing at what is an appropriate limit.\n\nBlock contents can be grinded much faster than hashgrinding and\nmining. There is a significant run-away effect there, and it also\nworks in the gradual sense as a miner probabilistically mines large\nblocks that get averaged into that 2016 median block size computation.\nAt least this proposal would be a slower way of pushing out miners and\nnetwork participants that can't handle 100 GB blocks immediately..  As\nthe size of the blocks are increased, low-end hardware participants\nhave to fall off the network because they no longer meet the minimum\nperformance requirements. Adjustment might become severely mismatched\nwith general economic trends in data storage device development or\navailability or even current-market-saturation of said storage\ndevices. With the assistance of transaction stuffing or grinding, that\n2016 block median metric can be gamed to increase faster than other\nparticipants can keep up with or, perhaps worse, in a way that was\nunintended by developers yet known to be a failure mode. These are\njust some issues to keep and mind and consider.\n\n- Bryan\nhttp://heybryan.org/\n1 512 203 0507"}