1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
|
Return-Path: <btcdrak@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3FEB3932
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 8 Sep 2015 08:49:53 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wi0-f169.google.com (mail-wi0-f169.google.com
[209.85.212.169])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D72B9C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 8 Sep 2015 08:49:52 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wicgb1 with SMTP id gb1so69015677wic.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 08 Sep 2015 01:49:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc:content-type;
bh=s8gzVBwMw0G6HUubsyn8Zx22U4Wx6DE7gqs5pO43ZR0=;
b=zFk2AT/ju8CMs9EPfYxkqDCSs3Y6b89G1PXIuP1LuiMfOT2RR4xUq0W48fnJFc8jMU
Cq5EKLbF1+hK2i4FiTExm8TiOs4WpBp66kObDvWCmbeKrG/hiNZ/yAcWMbYpiHWYGUhJ
tNr8Kcl+TKHxe6crd7JRK+yWdLN9bHON6s8PqA33u5ip3J3Cz1/vj6uv3U9hQlcxEJu6
nmJrEt975JMCTXADFcgbe0BqY9FQn7lKuXGA5R9wbvy0Q6PwnUcaE2rCvwU35balouXs
y7hvV8lhceUXx+E4LDaOWfvn3NTmsTXrNhu+ndC2EuO/YJhGt4E/nG7DtDIYQiXd83cL
N9pg==
X-Received: by 10.194.121.131 with SMTP id lk3mr43056099wjb.77.1441702191124;
Tue, 08 Sep 2015 01:49:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.28.211.16 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Sep 2015 01:49:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAG0bcYzzg4yeQvd27PZu5Fqv1ULS3cKeQHaRZ2zPcM3OASw1cg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAG0bcYzzg4yeQvd27PZu5Fqv1ULS3cKeQHaRZ2zPcM3OASw1cg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 09:49:31 +0100
Message-ID: <CADJgMztJx1cBFhNOwMgBHJGPmBNPqsTdQbCCjFBmDBSBfTMMUg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Washington Sanchez <washington.sanchez@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM,
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
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [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 08:49:53 -0000
> but allow meaningful relief to transaction volume pressure in response to true market demand
If blocksize can only increase then it's like a market that only goes
up which is unrealistic. Transaction will volume ebb and flow
significantly. Some people have been looking at transaction volume
charts over time and all they can see is an exponential curve which
they think will go on forever, yet nothing goes up forever and it will
go through significant trend cycles (like everything does). If you
dont want to hurt the fee market, the blocksize has to be elastic and
allow contraction as well as expansion.
On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 8:45 AM, Washington Sanchez via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 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
> Co-founder, OB1
> Core developer of OpenBazaar
> @drwasho
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
|
