rich1.0npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgydhttps://nostr.ae/npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgydnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-05-28 📝 Original message:> > Twenty is scary. > To whom? The only justification for the max size is DoS attacks, right? Back when Bitcoin had an average block size of 10kb, the max block size was 100x the average. Things worked fine, nobody was scared. The max block size is really a limit set by hardware capability, which is something that's difficult to measure in software. I think I preferred your original formula that guesstimated based on previous trends to one that just tries to follow some average. As noted, many miners just accept the defaults. With your proposed change their target would effectively *drop* from 1mb to 800kb today, which seems crazy. That's the exact opposite of what is needed right now. I am very skeptical about this idea. > I don't think us developers should be deciding things like whether or not > fees are too high, too low, > Miners can already attempt to apply fee pressure by just not mining transactions that they feel don't pay enough. Some sort of auto-cartel that attempts to restrict supply based on everyone looking at everyone else feels overly complex and prone to strange situations: it looks a lot like some kind of Mexican standoff to me. Additionally, the justification for the block size limit was DoS by someone mining "troll blocks". It was never meant to be about fee pressure. Resource management inside Bitcoin Core is certainly something to be handled by developers. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150528/3359ad4a/attachment.html>