On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:

It would probably behave as an ever-increasing block size limit. Spam has
typically filled blocks to the max, and miners have stopped self-enforcing
reasonable limits.

Using the growth rate over the last year as a model ( https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?daysAverageString=14 ), Block75 would also have frequently decreased the limit. Though, yes, more transactions would equal larger blocks over time, but that's the entire point of this.

What is your definition of "spam"? Also, can you point to data that supports the hypothesis that spam is filling blocks?

I doubt you'll get consensus for such a fundamentally broken proposal.

I certainly don't foresee any circumstance where I could reasonably support
it... The block size limit exists to restrict miners; it makes no sense to put
it in their control.

Specifically, what is broken about it?

There would still be a block size limit, it would just change slightly every two weeks. I agree that miners shouldn't have control of this, and Block75 doesn't give them any (at least none they can make a profit on).

- t.k.