rich1.0npub1lupuse8cysuanxcpq8h4d32359xxzedzjj83rmwv4yr9qxfmhtzqghjqchhttps://nostr.ae/npub1lupuse8cysuanxcpq8h4d32359xxzedzjj83rmwv4yr9qxfmhtzqghjqchnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2016-12-11 📝 Original message:On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 3:31 PM, James Hilliard <james.hilliard1 at gmail.com> wrote: > What's most likely to happen is miners will max out the blocks they > mine simply to try and get as many transaction fees as possible like > they are doing right now(there will be a backlog of transactions at > any block size). Having the block size double every year would likely > cause major problems and this proposal allows over a 7x increase it > seems. Block75 is not exponential scaling. It's true the max theoretical increase in the first year would be 7x, but the next year would be a max of 2x, and the next could only increase by 50% and so on. However, to reach the max in the first year: 1) ALL blocks would have to be 100% full and 2) transactions would have to increase at the same rate. We'd have to be doing 2.1 million transactions a day within a year to make that happen, and would therefore need blocks to be that big. Realistically, max block size will grow (and shrink) at a much slower rate ... even more so with SegWit. > The main problem with this proposal I think is that users effectively have no way to stop the miners from increasing block size > continuously. Yes they could, simply by not sending transactions. Users don't care at all about block size. They just want their transactions to be fast and relatively cheap. -t.k. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20161211/3af4ea5c/attachment.html>