Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP - 'Block75' - New algorithm

From: "t. khan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2017 15:41:42 -0500

On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Luke Dashjr <[email-masked]> 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.