MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAOXABZrMcpf4s=BuGsuLLoV80xt=hcd-i+h0V+AdJDQ2D8NKXg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABm2gDrfB+c1QTZippYYNX-uhcd9NYUcR-VHug6FYtPmSoz4Bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOXABZrMcpf4s=BuGsuLLoV80xt=hcd-i+h0V+AdJDQ2D8NKXg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 00:57:18 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDphRR20QT6mQ66pheQyEJz26RLDZD-FNx5=Jqr9JZkkLQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Ashley Holman <dscvlt@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A summary list of all concerns related to not
 rising the block size
Precedence: list

On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Ashley Holman via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> A concern I have is about security (hash rate) as a function of block size.
>
> I am assuming that hash rate is correlated with revenue from mining.
>
> Total revenue from fees as a function of block size should be a curve.  On
> one extreme of the curve, if blocks are too big, fee revenue tends towards 0
> as there is no competition for block space.  At the other extreme, if blocks
> are too small, fee revenue is limited only to what the most valuable use
> case(s) can afford.  Somewhere in the middle there should be a sweet spot
> where fee revenue is maximised.  It's not a static curve though, it should
> change as demand for block space changes.
>
> Failing to scale the block size as demand grows might be forfeiting
> potential miner revenue and hence security.
>
> (I don't think that should be a primary concern though since
> decentralisation should come first, but I'm just pointing it out as a
> secondary concern).

I believe your concerns are included in:

1) Potential indirect consequence of rising fees.
[...]
1.4) Less users than we could have had with a bigger size
1.4.2) Not enough fees when subsidy is lower