It seems to me all this would do is encourage 0-transaction blocks, crippling the network. Individual blocks don't have a "maximum" block size, they have an actual block size. Rational miners would pick blocks to minimize difficulty, lowering the "effective" maximum block size as defined by the optimal size for rational miners. This would be a tragedy of the commons.
In addition to that, average block cinfirmation time, and hence rate of inflation of the bitcoin currency, would now be subject to manipulation. This undermined a core value of Bitcoin. > On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Mark Friedenbach <m...@friedenbach.org> wrote: > > * For each block, the miner is allowed to select a different difficulty > (nBits) within a certain range, e.g. +/- 25% of the expected difficulty, and > this miner-selected difficulty is used for the proof of work check. In > addition to adjusting the hashcash target, selecting a different difficulty > also raises or lowers the maximum block size for that block by a function of > the difference in difficulty. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
