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 96DAEACB for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 17:40:01 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com (mail-lb0-f172.google.com [209.85.217.172]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A9A2189 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 17:40:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: by lbbpo10 with SMTP id po10so68741386lbb.3 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 10:39:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=pe1x3+MY3jgPOU15N2+qRZ56PglUKO5HkH/fQiE0roU=; b=Ztxf3FFKEaziPK2l8DZrBeKUhWVTW0buILu+FIHvC3d+rlIOELA22d+Mwj0If+x0gm wt6jzVxU0Uew79STeNOO6vxibeZwFYtvA1p+kFNnppenFbRgfKDmTV/Vnx/8wD1LuAiV FtwVAXU0pTbnflvewDbmpNS0N/7Ann0R5CkbbcDeHSq/qcrABcbSUU8mmx1M0cEC2f3b 3KtDGqVi2g/EUal4sNw6pshHWSPTfZ9yl+QV8vMQSRCwWcdA6c6Rpwq5NjMT4XNdyki1 2qjaCu+obLUNZzY8eg9umU6i/pl+Sps+jMvIOL/BODKjtVbI5qeZmpqJ4KQcK7KRyNpp PxrA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.210.9 with SMTP id mq9mr2635217lbc.4.1435340398539; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 10:39:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.90.75 with HTTP; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 10:39:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <19956282-19CC-4150-8865-F211774AF70E@novauri.com> References: <558A0B4A.7090205@riseup.net> <558A1E8E.30306@novauri.com> <0CAB4453-0C88-4CCB-86C1-DA192D4F77A1@gmail.com> <19956282-19CC-4150-8865-F211774AF70E@novauri.com> Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 13:39:58 -0400 Message-ID: From: Gavin Andresen To: Will Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3c8429639d905196f3a98 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,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@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Draft BIP : fixed-schedule block size increase X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 17:40:01 -0000 --001a11c3c8429639d905196f3a98 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Will wrote: > Make the lazy miners' default choice grow at the hard cap growth rate and > you should be ok if you want voting. I think the default block size is an orthogonal issue to the max block size. HOWEVER: I think changing the default 'target' block size from the current, fixed 750K to the average of the size of the last N blocks would have some nice properties. It is policy-neutral (we should get out of the business of deciding the right block size and let the miners who care drive block size up or down) and if there are a significant proportion of lazy miners going with defaults it gives the system a healthy "fee pressure." -- -- Gavin Andresen --001a11c3c8429639d905196f3a98 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On F= ri, Jun 26, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Will <will.madden@novauri.com><= /span> wrote:
Make the lazy miners' d= efault choice grow at the hard cap growth rate and you should be ok if you = want voting.

I think the default block size is an ort= hogonal issue to the max block size.

HOWEVER: I think changing the default 't= arget' block size from the current, fixed 750K to the average of the si= ze of the last N blocks would have some nice properties. It is policy-neutr= al (we should get out of the business of deciding the right block size and = let the miners who care drive block size up or down) and if there are a sig= nificant proportion of lazy miners going with defaults it gives the system = a healthy "fee pressure."
--
--
Gavin Andresen
--001a11c3c8429639d905196f3a98--