rich1.0npub1fvd9jpjgn33ry4tt663e3fpsw5zysxzuacumergtweqhsa6ac9gqred8prhttps://nostr.ae/npub1fvd9jpjgn33ry4tt663e3fpsw5zysxzuacumergtweqhsa6ac9gqred8prnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-08-28 📝 Original message:With this proposal, how much would it cost a miner to include an 'extra' 500-byte transaction if the average block size is 900K and it costs the miner 20BTC in electricity/capital/etc to mine a block? If my understanding of the proposal is correct, it is: 500/900000 * 20 = 0.11111 BTC ... Or $2.50 at today's exchange rate. That seems excessive. -- Gavin Andresen > On Aug 28, 2015, at 5:15 PM, Matt Whitlock via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > This is the best proposal I've seen yet. Allow me to summarize: > > • It addresses the problem, in Jeff Garzik's BIP 100, of miners selling their block-size votes. > • It addresses the problem, in Gavin Andresen's BIP 101, of blindly trying to predict future market needs versus future technological capacities. > • It avoids a large step discontinuity in the block-size limit by starting with a 1-MB limit. > • It throttles changes to ±10% every 2016 blocks. > • It imposes a tangible cost (higher difficulty) on miners who vote to raise the block-size limit. > • It avoids incentivizing miners to vote to lower the block-size limit. > > However, this proposal currently fails to answer a very important question: > > • What is the mechanism for activation of the new consensus rule? It is when a certain percentage of the blocks mined in a 2016-block retargeting period contain valid block-size votes? > > > https://github.com/btcdrak/bips/blob/bip-cbbsra/bip-cbbrsa.mediawiki > > >> On Friday, 28 August 2015, at 9:28 pm, Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev wrote: >> Pull request: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/187 > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev