MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <A30CC2E3-A769-445C-95A2-35B963EFC283@gmail.com>
References: <CADJgMzvWKA79NHE2uFy1wb-zL3sjC5huspQcaDczxTqD_7gXOg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADr=VrQR6rYK4sJJsDpUdFJaWZqhv=AkMqcG64EhsOCg1tDxVg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADJgMzvkBDBD9_=53kaD_6_jWH=vbWOnNwOKK5GOz8Du-F08dQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<2081355.cHxjDEpgpW@crushinator>
	<A30CC2E3-A769-445C-95A2-35B963EFC283@gmail.com>
From: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2015 00:38:53 +0100
Message-ID: <CADJgMzvaLdZhtm7g=C-XzCBRKtG8cof3geZjCsq=82cq6GNUPg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gavin <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: "bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
	<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Consensus based block size retargeting algorithm
	(draft)
Precedence: list

On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 11:24 PM, Gavin <gavinandresen@gmail.com> wrote:
> With this proposal, how much would it cost a miner to include an 'extra' 500-byte transaction if the average block size is 900K and it costs the miner 20BTC in electricity/capital/etc to mine a block?
>
> If my understanding of the proposal is correct, it is:
>
> 500/900000 * 20 = 0.11111 BTC

Typo, 0.01111

> ... Or $2.50 at today's exchange rate.
>
> That seems excessive.

I am not sure how it is relevant to this proposal because miners are
not paying to include an extra transaction. The BIP details how miners
can vote for a larger block size limit during a window of 2016 blocks.
The block size limit does not increase during this phase. The block
size limit is adjusted at the end of the sample window and the new
size is valid until the next retargetting.

If this wasn't clear, please let me know if I need to clarify any
specifics in the wording of the proposal.