{"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:2015-05-08\n📝 Original message:I like the bitcoin days destroyed idea.\n\nI like lots of the ideas that have been presented here, on the bitcointalk\nforums, etc etc etc.\n\nIt is easy to make a proposal, it is hard to wade through all of the\nproposals. I'm going to balance that equation by completely ignoring any\nproposal that isn't accompanied by code that implements the proposal (with\nappropriate tests).\n\nHowever, I'm not the bottleneck-- you need to get the attention of the\nother committers and convince THEM:\n\na) something should be done \"now-ish\"\nb) your idea is good\n\nWe are stuck on (a) right now, I think.\n\n\nOn Fri, May 8, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Joel Joonatan Kaartinen \u003c\njoel.kaartinen at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Matt,\n\u003e\n\u003e It seems you missed my suggestion about basing the maximum block size on\n\u003e the bitcoin days destroyed in transactions that are included in the block.\n\u003e I think it has potential for both scaling as well as keeping up a constant\n\u003e fee pressure. If tuned properly, it should both stop spamming and increase\n\u003e block size maximum when there are a lot of real transactions waiting for\n\u003e inclusion.\n\u003e\n\u003e - Joel\n\u003e\n\n\n-- \n--\nGavin Andresen\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150508/f3bd5434/attachment.html\u003e"}