On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 03:32:00PM +0300, Joel Joonatan Kaartinen 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.
The problem with gating block creation on Bitcoin days destroyed is there's a strong potential of giving big mining pools an huge advantage, because they can contract with large Bitcoin owners and buy dummy transactions with large numbers of Bitcoin days destroyed on demand whenever they need more days-destroyed to create larger blocks. Similarly, with appropriate SIGHASH flags such contracting can be done by modifying *existing* transactions on demand. Ultimately bitcoin days destroyed just becomes a very complex version of transaction fees, and it's already well known that gating blocksize on total transaction fees doesn't work. -- 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 00000000000000000f53e2d214685abf15b6d62d32453a03b0d472e374e10e94
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
_______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
