Return-Path: <washington.sanchez@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5EB64F21
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue,  8 Sep 2015 07:45:17 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ig0-f174.google.com (mail-ig0-f174.google.com
	[209.85.213.174])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9480A4
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue,  8 Sep 2015 07:45:16 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by igbni9 with SMTP id ni9so71032548igb.0
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue, 08 Sep 2015 00:45:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
	bh=MqfCPSOfakkU3eY/P4kwBXwWCUMGpZds9tCmcLYTfro=;
	b=R0Yx6/7txxohn5AXYb+k7YBHd+0P5jig/YzZgClM5km4N6sYnK2JTMBz34bdY/yo99
	NwL8F/wcewLsZIilF3xbzOb3yXnCQxjbcty4aJPzqwzEBMvKZPxsPhPxTzBb+o5GJiK0
	9Ru9KYjzawsCesDkO/3I/KKwtmvvNUNjKibXQwEB0I/PM+V37Z9eG+Xarfmb7+kLG0Sl
	uX3Rh9lUjynOr3w+QIPNx4aqwnOASg7sQLZmlNqbbGAKZdwsZeG2ERcYeenkvPgyS87V
	oRLWoZLb9rIOTETJhEi0Ge3gVWZYG4SN+INrnd9HO9rIKOcbmGfzutoCEnZljTfkc7AA
	jhRg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.90.180 with SMTP id bx20mr39601527igb.53.1441698316038;
	Tue, 08 Sep 2015 00:45:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.107.178.12 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Sep 2015 00:45:16 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 17:45:16 +1000
Message-ID: <CAG0bcYzzg4yeQvd27PZu5Fqv1ULS3cKeQHaRZ2zPcM3OASw1cg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Washington Sanchez <washington.sanchez@gmail.com>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bea3d28003a43051f378cb4
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
	autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
	smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Dynamic limit to the block size - BIP draft discussion
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2015 07:45:17 -0000

--047d7bea3d28003a43051f378cb4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Hi everyone,

I know many of us feel that the last thing the Bitcoin community needs is
another BIP related to the block size, but after a lot of reading and
commenting, I'd like to throw this idea out there.

I've already written it up as a BIP and would like some constructive
feedback/suggestions/alternatives related to some of the variables in my
specification:


Dynamic limit to the block size
=======================

The goal is to dynamically increase the maximum block size conservatively,
but allow meaningful relief to transaction volume pressure in response to
true market demand. The specification follows:

- Every 4032 blocks (~4 weeks), the maximum block size will be increased by
10% *IF* a minimum of 2000 blocks has a size >= 60% of the maximum block
size at that time
  + This calculates to theoretically 13 increases per year
- The maximum block size can only ever be increased, not decreased

For example, if this rule were to be instituted January 1st 2016, with a
present maximum block size 1 MB, the limit would be increased to 1.1 MB on
January 29th 2016. The theoretical maximum block size at the end of 2016
would be ~3.45 MB, assuming all 13 increases are triggered.

As the maximum block size rises, so the cost of artificially triggering an
increase in the maximum block size.


Regards,
Wash


-------------------------------------------
*Dr Washington Y. Sanchez <http://onename.com/drwasho>*
Co-founder, OB1 <http://ob1.io>
Core developer of OpenBazaar <https://openbazaar.org>
@drwasho <https://twitter.com/drwasho>

--047d7bea3d28003a43051f378cb4
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Hi everyone,<div><br></div><div>I know many of us feel tha=
t the last thing the Bitcoin community needs is another BIP related to the =
block size, but after a lot of reading and commenting, I&#39;d like to thro=
w this idea out there.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>I&#39;ve already writ=
ten it up as a BIP and would like some constructive feedback/suggestions/al=
ternatives related to some of the variables in my specification:</div><div>=
<br></div><div><br></div><div>Dynamic limit to the block size</div><div>=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D</div><di=
v><br></div><div>The goal is to dynamically increase the maximum block size=
 conservatively, but allow meaningful relief to transaction volume pressure=
 in response to true market demand. The specification follows:</div><div><b=
r></div><div><div>- Every 4032 blocks (~4 weeks), the maximum block size wi=
ll be increased by 10% *IF* a minimum of 2000 blocks has a size &gt;=3D 60%=
 of the maximum block size at that time</div><div>=C2=A0 + This calculates =
to theoretically 13 increases per year=C2=A0</div><div>- The maximum block =
size can only ever be increased, not decreased</div><div>=C2=A0</div><div>F=
or example, if this rule were to be instituted January 1st 2016, with a pre=
sent maximum block size 1 MB, the limit would be increased to 1.1 MB on Jan=
uary 29th 2016. The theoretical maximum block size at the end of 2016 would=
 be ~3.45 MB, assuming all 13 increases are triggered.</div><div><br></div>=
<div>As the maximum block size rises, so the cost of artificially triggerin=
g an increase in the maximum block size.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div=
><div>Regards,</div><div>Wash</div><div><br></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_s=
ignature"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div>----------------=
---------------------------</div><div><b><a href=3D"http://onename.com/drwa=
sho" target=3D"_blank">Dr Washington Y. Sanchez</a></b></div><div>Co-founde=
r, <a href=3D"http://ob1.io" target=3D"_blank">OB1</a></div><div>Core devel=
oper of <a href=3D"https://openbazaar.org" target=3D"_blank">OpenBazaar</a>=
</div><div><a href=3D"https://twitter.com/drwasho" target=3D"_blank">@drwas=
ho</a></div></div><div><br></div></div></div></div></div>
</div></div>

--047d7bea3d28003a43051f378cb4--