📅 Original date posted:2016-12-11
📝 Original message:On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 1:40 PM, t. khan via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
With those limits there's very little reason to not simply have a fixed
schedule. Blocks are likely to all be full in the future anyway, with a
real fee market, and the idea that miners will be held back on block sizes
for worry about propagation delay is a myth, and even if it were true it
would favor collective pooling a lot, which would be a very bad thing.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20161211/ea9bb129/attachment.html>;
Bram Cohen [ARCHIVE] /
npub1ld…t8ur6
2023-06-07 17:54:50
in reply to nevent1q…hr9c
Author Public Key
npub1ldcq03p2qe58u0xnlwa35wchjuhz49y6ueu5ghmtjetez9xstnvsmt8ur6Published at
2023-06-07 17:54:50Event JSON
{
"id": "252cad0eb92d929db4bb4fdafb265a318b927748fb59861e05849d771a97e4d6",
"pubkey": "fb7007c42a06687e3cd3fbbb1a3b17972e2a949ae679445f6b96579114d05cd9",
"created_at": 1686160490,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"93f229f84c7a0d580081719bdeab8a0791a31bea972b61b4a96af898141b5a6b",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"3477646402f6a67a5581e39e2419b7ffc386cb5473f5f163d9d242fc6c49feae",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"ff03c864f82439d99b0101ef56c551a14c6165a2948f11edcca90650193bbac4"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2016-12-11\n📝 Original message:On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 1:40 PM, t. khan via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e\n\u003e Block75 is not exponential scaling. It's true the max theoretical increase\n\u003e in the first year would be 7x, but the next year would be a max of 2x, and\n\u003e the next could only increase by 50% and so on.\n\u003e\n\nWith those limits there's very little reason to not simply have a fixed\nschedule. Blocks are likely to all be full in the future anyway, with a\nreal fee market, and the idea that miners will be held back on block sizes\nfor worry about propagation delay is a myth, and even if it were true it\nwould favor collective pooling a lot, which would be a very bad thing.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20161211/ea9bb129/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "64016500433fa97b5181c082fe1cac6e3ac8797888ea0e0493dca0e01d33d847a2932b62de01138ee127012cfbe7795281f7531abb7b65dc86bbeb849253beb8"
}