From: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
	Ryan J Martin <rjmarti2@millersville.edu>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 12:30:49 +0200
Message-ID: <1715389.dpD6Bbpm7b@strawberry>
In-Reply-To: <127281C1AA02374F8AAD9EE04FAE878A0218E8B825@STUDMail1.muad.local>
References: <CAFzgq-xizPMNqfvW11nUhd6HmfZu8aGjcR9fshEsf6o5HOt_dA@mail.gmail.com>
	<2349f523-942c-ffb9-7af2-5cc81264888f@gmail.com>
	<127281C1AA02374F8AAD9EE04FAE878A0218E8B825@STUDMail1.muad.local>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hard fork proposal from last week's meeting
Precedence: list

On Thursday, 30 March 2017 07:23:31 CEST Ryan J Martin via bitcoin-dev=20
wrote:
>      The original post and the assorted limit proposals---lead me to
> something I think is worth reiterating: assuming Bitcoin adoption
> continues to grow at similar or accelerating rates, then eventually the
> mempool is going to be filled with thousands of txs at all times whether
> block limits are 1MB or 16MB

This is hopefully true. :)

There is an unbounded amount of demand for block space, and as such it=20
doesn=E2=80=99t benefit anyone if the amount of free transactions get out o=
f hand.=20
Because freeloaders would definitely be able to completely suffocate Bitcoi=
n.

In the mail posted by OP he makes clear that this is a proposal for a hard=
=20
fork to change the block size *limit*. The actual block size would not be=20
changed at the same time, it will continue being set based on market values=
=20
or whatever we decide between now and then.

The block size itself should be set based on the amount of fees being paid=
=20
to miners to make a block.

What we want is a true fee-market where the miner can decide to make a bloc=
k=20
smaller to get people to pay more fees, because if we were to go to 16MB=20
blocks in one go, the cost of the miner would go up, but his reward based o=
n=20
fees will go down!
A block so big that 100% of the transactions will always be mined in the=20
next block will just cause a large section of people to no longer feel the=
=20
need to pay fees.

As such I don=E2=80=99t fear the situation where the block size limit goes =
up a lot=20
in one go, because it is not in anyone=E2=80=99s interest to make the actua=
l block=20
size follow.
=2D-=20
Tom Zander
Blog: https://zander.github.io
Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel