From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 328DFB66 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 10:30:55 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mx-out03.mykolab.com (mx.kolabnow.com [95.128.36.1]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1488CAD for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 10:30:53 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at kolabnow.com X-Spam-Score: -2.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from mx03.mykolab.com (mx03.mykolab.com [10.20.7.101]) by mx-out03.mykolab.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0DF4924C38; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 12:30:51 +0200 (CEST) From: Tom Zander To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Ryan J Martin Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 12:30:49 +0200 Message-ID: <1715389.dpD6Bbpm7b@strawberry> In-Reply-To: <127281C1AA02374F8AAD9EE04FAE878A0218E8B825@STUDMail1.muad.local> References: <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" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 10:57:54 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hard fork proposal from last week's meeting X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 10:30:55 -0000 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