Proposal 1 does not deal with Tx fee. Proposal 2 does. According to proposal 2, miners wont be able to increase or decrease Max Block Size only by manipulating Tx fee. They have to manipulate... i. Tx fee of ~4000 blocks. ii. Block size of ~4000 blocks. I never proposed *next block collects Tx fee from previous block*. Not sure what you mean here! On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 2:49 PM, Chun Wang <1240902@gmail.com> wrote: > Proposal 1 looks good, but tx fee collected can be manipulated by > miners. I like the idea next block collect the tx fee from previous > block. > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Upal Chakraborty via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > Github: > > > https://github.com/UpalChakraborty/bips/blob/master/BIP-DynamicMaxBlockSize.mediawiki > > > > 
> >   BIP: 1xx
> >   Title: Dynamically Controlled Bitcoin Block Size Max Cap
> >   Author: Upal Chakraborty 
> >   Status: Draft
> >   Type: Standards Track
> >   Created: 2015-08-24
> >
> > > > ==Abstract== > > > > This BIP proposes replacing the fixed one megabyte maximum block size > with a > > dynamically controlled maximum block size that may increase or decrease > with > > difficulty change depending on various network factors. I have two > proposals > > regarding this... > > > > i. Depending only on previous block size calculation. > > > > ii. Depending on previous block size calculation and previous Tx fee > > collected by miners. > > > > ==Motivation== > > > > With increased adoption, transaction volume on bitcoin network is bound > to > > grow. If the one megabyte max cap is not changed to a flexible one which > > changes itself with changing network demand, then adoption will hamper > and > > bitcoin's growth may choke up. Following graph shows the change in > average > > block size since inception... > > > > > https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=all&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address= > > > > ==Specification== > > > > ===Proposal 1 : Depending only on previous block size calculation=== > > > > If more than 50% of block's size, found in the first 2000 of the last > > difficulty period, is more than 90% MaxBlockSize > > Double MaxBlockSize > > Else if more than 90% of block's size, found in the first 2000 of the > last > > difficulty period, is less than 50% MaxBlockSize > > Half MaxBlockSize > > Else > > Keep the same MaxBlockSize > > > > ===Proposal 2 : Depending on previous block size calculation and > previous Tx > > fee collected by miners=== > > > > TotalBlockSizeInLastButOneDifficulty = Sum of all Block size of first > 2008 > > blocks in last 2 difficulty period > > TotalBlockSizeInLastDifficulty = Sum of all Block size of second 2008 > > blocks in last 2 difficulty period (This actually includes 8 blocks from > > last but one difficulty) > > > > TotalTxFeeInLastButOneDifficulty = Sum of all Tx fees of first 2008 > blocks > > in last 2 difficulty period > > TotalTxFeeInLastDifficulty = Sum of all Tx fees of second 2008 blocks > in > > last 2 difficulty period (This actually includes 8 blocks from last but > one > > difficulty) > > > > If ( ( (Sum of first 4016 block size in last 2 difficulty period)/4016 > > > > 50% MaxBlockSize) AND (TotalTxFeeInLastDifficulty > > > TotalTxFeeInLastButOneDifficulty) AND (TotalBlockSizeInLastDifficulty > > > TotalBlockSizeInLastButOneDifficulty) ) > > MaxBlockSize = TotalBlockSizeInLastDifficulty * MaxBlockSize / > > TotalBlockSizeInLastButOneDifficulty > > Else If ( ( (Sum of first 4016 block size in last 2 difficulty > > period)/4016 < 50% MaxBlockSize) AND (TotalTxFeeInLastDifficulty < > > TotalTxFeeInLastButOneDifficulty) AND (TotalBlockSizeInLastDifficulty < > > TotalBlockSizeInLastButOneDifficulty) ) > > MaxBlockSize = TotalBlockSizeInLastDifficulty * MaxBlockSize / > > TotalBlockSizeInLastButOneDifficulty > > Else > > Keep the same MaxBlockSize > > > > ==Rationale== > > > > These two proposals have been derived after discussion on > > [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1154536.0 BitcoinTalk] and > > [ > http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010285.html > > bitcoin-dev mailing list]. The original idea and its evolution in the > light > > of various arguements can be found [http://upalc.com/maxblocksize.php > here]. > > > > ===Proposal 1 : Depending only on previous block size calculation=== > > > > This solution is derived directly from the indication of the problem. If > > transaction volume increases, then we will naturally see bigger blocks. > On > > the contrary, if there are not enough transaction volume, but maximum > block > > size is high, then only few blocks may sweep the mempool. Hence, if block > > size is itself taken into consideration, then maximum block size can most > > rationally be derived. Moreover, this solution not only increases, but > also > > decreases the maximum block size, just like difficulty. > > > > ===Proposal 2 : Depending on previous block size calculation and > previous Tx > > fee collected by miners=== > > > > This solution takes care of stable mining subsidy. It will not increase > > maximum block size, if Tx fee collection is not increasing and thereby > > creating a Tx fee pressure on the market. On the other hand, though the > > block size max cap is dynamically controlled, it is very difficult to > game > > by any party because the increase or decrease of block size max cap will > > take place in the same ratio of average block size increase or decrease. > > > > ==Compatibility== > > > > This is a hard-forking change to the Bitcoin protocol; anybody running > code > > that fully validates blocks must upgrade before the activation time or > they > > will risk rejecting a chain containing larger-than-one-megabyte blocks. > > > > ==Other solutions considered== > > > > [http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf Making > > Decentralized Economic Policy] - by Jeff Garzik > > > > [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1078521.0 Elastic block cap > with > > rollover penalties] - by Meni Rosenfeld > > > > [https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0101.mediawiki Increase > > maximum block size] - by Gavin Andresen > > > > [https://gist.github.com/sipa/c65665fc360ca7a176a6 Block size following > > technological growth] - by Pieter Wuille > > > > [https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf The Bitcoin > Lightning > > Network: Scalable Off-Chain Instant Payments] - by Joseph Poon & Thaddeus > > Dryja > > > > ==Deployment== > > > > If consensus is achieved, deployment can be made at a future block > number at > > which difficulty will change. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > bitcoin-dev mailing list > > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > >