On Friday, 8 May 2015, at 3:32 pm, Joel Joonatan Kaartinen wrote:
> 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.

I saw it. I apologize for not including it in my list. I should have, for sake 
of discussion, even though I have a problem with it.

My problem with it is that "bitcoin days destroyed" is not a measure of demand 
for space in the block chain. In the distant future, when Bitcoin is the 
predominant global currency, bitcoins will have such high velocity that the 
number of bitcoin days destroyed in each block will be much lower than at 
present. Does this mean that the block size limit should be lower in the future 
than it is now? Clearly this would be incorrect.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your proposal. Could you describe it more 

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.
Bitcoin-development mailing list

Reply via email to