Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev 於 2015-09-03 00:05 寫到:

Schemes proposing to pay with difficulty / hashpower to change block
size should be avoided.  The miners incentive has always been fairly
straightforward - it is rational to deploy new hashpower as soon as
you can get it online.  Introducing the concepts of (a) requiring
out-of-band collusion to change block size and/or (b) requiring miners
to have idle hashpower on hand to change block size are both
unrealistic and potentially corrosive.  That potentially makes the
block size - and therefore fee market - too close, too sensitive to
the wild vagaries of the mining chip market.

Pay-to-future-miner has neutral, forward looking incentives worth
researching.

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Ref: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010723.html

I explained here why pay with difficulty is bad for everyone: miners and users, and described the use of OP_CLTV for pay-to-future-miner

However, a general problem of pay-to-increase-block-size scheme is it indirectly sets a minimal tx fee, which could be difficult and arbitrary, and is against competition