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 E08C0978 for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 11:21:45 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-qk0-f172.google.com (mail-qk0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 829C416F for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 11:21:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qk0-f172.google.com with SMTP id 11so90022231qkl.3 for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 03:21:45 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=G85syKrcbwE10SooWy0qTSmXhiCHDYaD3J1D0v2PPhs=; b=Yh+MdkVUIpk9JOgYayugyj/To85Ppo9ms1IOek4GBiwgwvNBM9byvh0gL8bByd9JJB Z5BCTHvOwnRVWIXaRIZA0gF9hUJmjxkihXaRnJ2xsy1iV8XHxqNFnyd1te6ETNB2l+bH lrH20lLLg8OE4Bmdxjq1Mc1oS1abNHx/v/XDmSWwMcRyuOrUSB+Lym6AKV32kSJDFP9X DcDgq2X674m46xnMBZx6K839wrf7hPjE6tUza3/4ArwMIySfW2Yruztd14U0hN9rf7d2 cTo2QJq7iC7UhJBS3qPRp4hBU3EflERM11diU5DEWVh/7Zomut9x622dncH8hNFvJ7Ty NCew== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=G85syKrcbwE10SooWy0qTSmXhiCHDYaD3J1D0v2PPhs=; b=Z6UjRsgqmgT5ZeXYmVtUR0i5EExWzkL9Fn7wcQ8SCrnzbkvCsAJyFt/Edvlh2jbrQK JOd7F8GuLRV8lsrjtJpta1hnczTcWmIhL5drLhsBkgY+jeSVx5+KoR3ivKlRK+ncaaGi Er8z8sMmQEapyfWXbsb4uTE9XCWnqQhEcZx5OwYeN0SAcrEWB9YyLmM4pjj9xE4K2MKY d7LtwalIS1iGcBntil4+n//JN4oT0Nqg0AbTd4XvpPBfvJREq9GO1a7EdSiyOTe9TJST 0zRl2RYMVnrm3pEIsxqX88dhHj31y60u6Xu3dhcE5gPuCiNxYLESSpGn008ymnvYvFMk ETNw== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39mzNsUsN9Pl+1dLVdTmdABAzqALlKbEG9e8mN85Z9oYvt0FhfdIYHA7u+/3w4tB6sWuRvDq+HXSz0DXAg== X-Received: by 10.55.80.214 with SMTP id e205mr20438181qkb.60.1486984904714; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 03:21:44 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.237.57.136 with HTTP; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 03:21:44 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <201701022119.11115.luke@dashjr.org> References: <1944321.hguq3JoYe1@cherry> <201701022119.11115.luke@dashjr.org> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Hampus_Sj=C3=B6berg?= Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 12:21:44 +0100 Message-ID: To: Luke Dashjr , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114a7f8a083207054867a767 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 11:48:15 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP - 'Block75' - New algorithm 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: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 11:21:46 -0000 --001a114a7f8a083207054867a767 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > It gives miners complete control over the limit. They can make blocks of any size (within the current limit), thus triggering the conditions by which your proposal would raise the limit further. There might be a long term incentive to keep increasing the blocksize, to further centralize the network (and kick smaller miners out), but it comes with the cost of losing out on transaction fees. Miners have always needed to plan for the short term, I see no rational scenario where miners would spam their blocks with their own transactions (or low fee transactions) to keep increasing the blocksize limit. Hampus --001a114a7f8a083207054867a767 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> It gives miners complete control over = the limit. They can make blocks of any size (within the current limit), thu= s triggering the conditions by which your proposal would raise the limit fu= rther.

There might be a long term incentive to keep increasing= the blocksize, to further centralize the network (and kick smaller miners = out), but it comes with the cost of losing out on transaction fees.
Miners have always needed to plan for the short term, I see no rational s= cenario where miners would spam their blocks with their own transactions (o= r low fee transactions) to keep increasing the blocksize limit.

Hampus
--001a114a7f8a083207054867a767--