📅 Original date posted:2015-05-08
📝 Original message:On Friday, 8 May 2015, at 3:32 pm, Joel Joonatan Kaartinen wrote:
> It seems you missed my suggestion about basing the maximum block size on
> the bitcoin days destroyed in transactions that are included in the block.
> I think it has potential for both scaling as well as keeping up a constant
> fee pressure. If tuned properly, it should both stop spamming and increase
> block size maximum when there are a lot of real transactions waiting for
> inclusion.
I saw it. I apologize for not including it in my list. I should have, for sake of discussion, even though I have a problem with it.
My problem with it is that "bitcoin days destroyed" is not a measure of demand for space in the block chain. In the distant future, when Bitcoin is the predominant global currency, bitcoins will have such high velocity that the number of bitcoin days destroyed in each block will be much lower than at present. Does this mean that the block size limit should be lower in the future than it is now? Clearly this would be incorrect.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding your proposal. Could you describe it more explicitly?
Matt Whitlock [ARCHIVE] /
npub17q…upwet
2023-06-07 15:33:55
in reply to nevent1q…kj34
Author Public Key
npub17qxssk9sj2r7jswvh3y32e7vwz7mcckhz33gk9nurdmw0lhsfkgswupwetPublished at
2023-06-07 15:33:55Event JSON
{
"id": "d95d94711bb047b1a3ab4f1b8d0ea2456df3a815e175a67a92fc19045b91ad31",
"pubkey": "f00d0858b09287e941ccbc491567cc70bdbc62d714628b167c1b76e7fef04d91",
"created_at": 1686152035,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"aec396df7693e37c124fbd2891fe6c4a3b28f46e7fbc3f304a7b1d78d2f5ffbe",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"30b5cdf59a68c3961ae2736a893eda7362651c138b1fd345709310256bf61a20",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"d52a1b72551bba47beb14639a1b6f5e6cd98603ecbaaa6ab02031708d9cc4473"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-05-08\n📝 Original message:On Friday, 8 May 2015, at 3:32 pm, Joel Joonatan Kaartinen wrote:\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\nI saw it. I apologize for not including it in my list. I should have, for sake of discussion, even though I have a problem with it.\n\nMy problem with it is that \"bitcoin days destroyed\" is not a measure of demand for space in the block chain. In the distant future, when Bitcoin is the predominant global currency, bitcoins will have such high velocity that the number of bitcoin days destroyed in each block will be much lower than at present. Does this mean that the block size limit should be lower in the future than it is now? Clearly this would be incorrect.\n\nPerhaps I am misunderstanding your proposal. Could you describe it more explicitly?",
"sig": "a52f5e9f53bef56d1448d60fcc7edb90f3773a133823b0d8696963cae0e823f722d4d1692e741a365173e5a2c2e3f3d656082fa9945b039a39790085fc60698a"
}