📅 Original date posted:2015-06-26
📝 Original message:Moving averages have upsides and downsides vs fixed growth. Moving averages are backwards looking and don't handle seasonalities or unanticipated increases in demand very well.
Think "Black Friday" or the horribly named "Cyber
Monday" in retail or market hysteria where millions of noobs jump into or out of bitcoin.
If you want to create fee pressure I think this can be done, but I would keep both of these in mind before choosing a value for N. Adjustments would need to be frequent and nimble enough to handle seasonalities and other unanticipated outliers.
> On Jun 26, 2015, at 1:39 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Will <will.madden at novauri.com> wrote:
>> Make the lazy miners' default choice grow at the hard cap growth rate and you should be ok if you want voting.
>
> I think the default block size is an orthogonal issue to the max block size.
>
> HOWEVER: I think changing the default 'target' block size from the current, fixed 750K to the average of the size of the last N blocks would have some nice properties. It is policy-neutral (we should get out of the business of deciding the right block size and let the miners who care drive block size up or down) and if there are a significant proportion of lazy miners going with defaults it gives the system a healthy "fee pressure."
>
> --
> --
> Gavin Andresen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150626/7bb2f08e/attachment-0001.html>;
Will [ARCHIVE] /
npub1xe…zrjrx
2023-06-07 15:39:53
in reply to nevent1q…gzcy
Author Public Key
npub1xe4sg9zgsm90v8ge3r0h29jmwjuudcldxfwczaazuph5y5020jvqpzrjrxPublished at
2023-06-07 15:39:53Event JSON
{
"id": "01233a9fbded97cc16899f0977e33138cd1e3eb77bccceeb502906ae64581865",
"pubkey": "366b04144886caf61d1988df75165b74b9c6e3ed325d8177a2e06f4251ea7c98",
"created_at": 1686152393,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"1936c15d372dc9e8a0eaf645dcff207375e90675dbebfadcf82370abc654737d",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"2c94db09f982dd14c9688ac11a09e67d2b15f0de4461790ebcb74ddaa5c8c7b2",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"857f2f78dc1639e711f5ea703a9fc978e22ebd279abdea1861b7daa833512ee4"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-06-26\n📝 Original message:Moving averages have upsides and downsides vs fixed growth. Moving averages are backwards looking and don't handle seasonalities or unanticipated increases in demand very well.\n\nThink \"Black Friday\" or the horribly named \"Cyber \nMonday\" in retail or market hysteria where millions of noobs jump into or out of bitcoin.\n\nIf you want to create fee pressure I think this can be done, but I would keep both of these in mind before choosing a value for N. Adjustments would need to be frequent and nimble enough to handle seasonalities and other unanticipated outliers.\n\n\u003e On Jun 26, 2015, at 1:39 PM, Gavin Andresen \u003cgavinandresen at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e\u003e On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Will \u003cwill.madden at novauri.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e Make the lazy miners' default choice grow at the hard cap growth rate and you should be ok if you want voting.\n\u003e \n\u003e I think the default block size is an orthogonal issue to the max block size.\n\u003e \n\u003e HOWEVER: I think changing the default 'target' block size from the current, fixed 750K to the average of the size of the last N blocks would have some nice properties. It is policy-neutral (we should get out of the business of deciding the right block size and let the miners who care drive block size up or down) and if there are a significant proportion of lazy miners going with defaults it gives the system a healthy \"fee pressure.\"\n\u003e \n\u003e -- \n\u003e --\n\u003e Gavin Andresen\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150626/7bb2f08e/attachment-0001.html\u003e",
"sig": "b0c252665e23c391590eb9e0e9bdd15732c50ae9a30c14ae92a4000d9890b50bde3ba7137f7c6ddf2a94fefb3c29d320f12ceb961a6c5120a5dbf96662451ec2"
}