Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposed alternatives to the 20MB step function

From: Gavin Andresen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 08:48:47 -0400

I like the bitcoin days destroyed idea.

I like lots of the ideas that have been presented here, on the bitcointalk
forums, etc etc etc.

It is easy to make a proposal, it is hard to wade through all of the
proposals. I'm going to balance that equation by completely ignoring any
proposal that isn't accompanied by code that implements the proposal (with
appropriate tests).

However, I'm not the bottleneck-- you need to get the attention of the
other committers and convince THEM:

a) something should be done "now-ish"
b) your idea is good

We are stuck on (a) right now, I think.

On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Joel Joonatan Kaartinen <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> Matt,
>
> It seems you missed my suggestion about basing the maximum block size on
> the bitcoin days destroyed in transactions that are included in the block.
> I think it has potential for both scaling as well as keeping up a constant
> fee pressure. If tuned properly, it should both stop spamming and increase
> block size maximum when there are a lot of real transactions waiting for
> inclusion.
>
> - Joel
>

-- 
--
Gavin Andresen