From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YzNvb-0002UG-Im for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 11:30:47 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.213.174 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.213.174; envelope-from=ricardojdfilipe@gmail.com; helo=mail-ig0-f174.google.com; Received: from mail-ig0-f174.google.com ([209.85.213.174]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YzNvZ-0007l9-Or for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 11:30:47 +0000 Received: by igbpi8 with SMTP id pi8so58544427igb.1 for ; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 04:30:40 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.170.219 with SMTP id g88mr26356956ioj.85.1433158240432; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 04:30:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.20.207 with HTTP; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 04:30:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <16096345.A1MpJQQkRW@crushinator> Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 12:30:40 +0100 Message-ID: From: Ricardo Filipe Cc: Bitcoin Dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Score: 0.4 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (ricardojdfilipe[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.2 MISSING_HEADERS Missing To: header -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature 2.7 MALFORMED_FREEMAIL Bad headers on message from free email service -2.0 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address X-Headers-End: 1YzNvZ-0007l9-Or Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposed alternatives to the 20MB step function X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 11:30:47 -0000 I've been following the discussion of the block size limit and IMO it is clear that any constant block size limit is, as many have said before, just kicking the can down the road. My problem with the dynamic lower limit solution based on past blocks is that it doesn't account for usage spikes. I would like to propose another dynamic lower limit scheme: Let the block size limit be a function of the number of current transactions in the mempool. This way, bitcoin usage regulates the block size limit. I'm sorry i don't have the knowledge of the code base or time to make simulations on this kind of approach, but nevertheless I would like to leave it here for discussion or foster other ideas. cheers