My understanding, which is very likely wrong in one way or another, is transaction size and block size are two slightly different things but perhaps it's so negligible that block size is a fine stand-in for total transaction throughput.

Potentially Doubling the block size everyday is frankly imprudent. The logarithmic increases in difficulty, which were often closer to 10% or 20% every 2016 blocks was and is plenty fast, potentially changing blocksize by twice daily is the mentality I would expect from a startup with the move fast break things motto.

Infrastructure takes time, not everyone wants to run a node on a virtual amazon instance, provisioning additional hard drive and bandwidth can't happen overnight and trying to plan when block size from one week to the next is a total mystery would be extremely difficult.

Anyone who has spent time examining the mining difficulty increases and trajectory knows future planning is very very hard, allowing block size to double daily would make it impossible.

Perhaps a middle way would be 300%  increase every 2016 blocks, that will scale to 20mbs within a  month or two

The problem is logarithmic increases seem slow until they seem fast. If the network begins to grow and block size hits 20, then the next day 40, 80... Small nodes could get swamped within a week or less.

As for your point about Christmas, Bitcoin is a global network, Christmas, while widely celebrated, isn't the only holiday, and planning around American buying habits seems short sighted and no different from developers trying to choose what the right fee pressure is.

On May 28, 2015 1:22 PM, "Gavin Andresen" <gavinandresen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Steven Pine <steven.pine@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I would support a dynamic block size increase as outlined. I have a few questions though.
>>
>> Is scaling by average block size the best and easiest method, why not scale by transactions confirmed instead? Anyone can write and relay a transaction, and those are what we want to scale for, why not measure it directly?
>
>
> What do you mean? Transactions aren't confirmed until they're in a block...
>  
>>
>> I would prefer changes every 2016 blocks, it is a well known change and a reasonable time period for planning on changes. Two weeks is plenty fast, especially at a 50% rate increase, in a few months the block size could be dramatically larger.
>
>
> What type of planning do you imagine is necessary?
>
> And have you looked at transaction volumes for credit-card payment networks around Christmas?
>  
>>
>> Daily change to size seems confusing especially considering that max block size will be dipping up and down. Also if something breaks trying to fix it in a day seems problematic. The hard fork database size difference error comes to mind. Finally daily 50% increases could quickly crowd out smaller nodes if changes happen too quickly to adapt for.
>
> The bottleneck is transaction volume; blocks won't get bigger unless there are fee-paying transactions around to pay them. What scenario are you imagining where transaction volume increases by 50% a day for a sustained period of time?
>
> --
> --
> Gavin Andresen