📅 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>;
t. khan [ARCHIVE] /
npub1lu…hjqch
2023-06-07 17:54:49
in reply to nevent1q…04cd
Author Public Key
npub1lupuse8cysuanxcpq8h4d32359xxzedzjj83rmwv4yr9qxfmhtzqghjqchPublished at
2023-06-07 17:54:49Event JSON
{
"id": "3477646402f6a67a5581e39e2419b7ffc386cb5473f5f163d9d242fc6c49feae",
"pubkey": "ff03c864f82439d99b0101ef56c551a14c6165a2948f11edcca90650193bbac4",
"created_at": 1686160489,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"93f229f84c7a0d580081719bdeab8a0791a31bea972b61b4a96af898141b5a6b",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"8112169647c7c70f20d3fa479163f09712ebc28eb8aa64e4a5236c93d6b18472",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"78cadd65bb98ff2b50ae825fa100352d7f102e41ec5caad2e4d2e99e00df1394"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2016-12-11\n📝 Original message:On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 3:31 PM, James Hilliard \u003cjames.hilliard1 at gmail.com\u003e\nwrote:\n\n\u003e What's most likely to happen is miners will max out the blocks they\n\u003e mine simply to try and get as many transaction fees as possible like\n\u003e they are doing right now(there will be a backlog of transactions at\n\u003e any block size). Having the block size double every year would likely\n\u003e cause major problems and this proposal allows over a 7x increase it\n\u003e seems.\n\n\nBlock75 is not exponential scaling. It's true the max theoretical increase\nin the first year would be 7x, but the next year would be a max of 2x, and\nthe next could only increase by 50% and so on.\n\nHowever, to reach the max in the first year: 1) ALL blocks would have to be\n100% full and 2) transactions would have to increase at the same rate. We'd\nhave to be doing 2.1 million transactions a day within a year to make that\nhappen, and would therefore need blocks to be that big.\n\nRealistically, max block size will grow (and shrink) at a much slower rate\n... even more so with SegWit.\n\n\n\u003e The main problem with this proposal I think is that users effectively\n\nhave no way to stop the miners from increasing block size\n\u003e continuously.\n\n\nYes they could, simply by not sending transactions. Users don't care at all\nabout block size. They just want their transactions to be fast and\nrelatively cheap.\n\n-t.k.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20161211/3af4ea5c/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "2a189f86aa2ba462891edfed2747ea67c44edbdfd70d2cc86e1c8a2a7a79e2e93d6be6c3640e4898300fc9145ff949f80ffbbc4a753b7d9cb96fcb9e0678755b"
}