rich1.0npub1s4lj77xuzcu7wy04afcr487f0r3za0f8n2775xrpkld2sv639mjqsd44kwhttps://nostr.ae/npub1s4lj77xuzcu7wy04afcr487f0r3za0f8n2775xrpkld2sv639mjqsd44kwnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-05-28 📝 Original message:On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 1:05 PM, Mike Hearn <mike at plan99.net> wrote: > Isn't that a step backwards, then? I see no reason for fee pressure to >> exist at the moment. All it's doing is turning away users for no purpose: >> mining isn't supported by fees, and the tiny fees we use right now seem to >> be good enough to stop penny flooding. >> > > Why not set the max size to be 20x the average size? Why 2x, given you > just pointed out that'd result in blocks shrinking rather than growing. > Twenty is scary. And two is a very neutral number: if 50% of hashpower want the max size to grow as fast as possible and 50% are dead-set opposed to any increase in max size, then half produce blocks 2 times as big, half produce empty blocks, and the max size doesn't change. If it was 20, then a small minority of miners could force a max size increase. (if it is less than 2, then a minority of minors can force the block size down) As for whether there "should" be fee pressure now or not: I have no opinion, besides "we should make block propagation faster so there is no technical reason for miners to produce tiny blocks." I don't think us developers should be deciding things like whether or not fees are too high, too low, ..... -- -- Gavin Andresen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150528/ef414a76/attachment.html>