On 9/2/2015 9:05 PM, Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev wrote:
Schemes proposing to pay with difficulty / hashpower to change block
size should be avoided. The miners incentive has always been fairly
straightforward - it is rational to deploy new hashpower as soon as
you can get it online. Introducing the concepts of (a) requiring
out-of-band collusion to change block size and/or (b) requiring miners
to have idle hashpower on hand to change block size are both
unrealistic and potentially corrosive. That potentially makes the
block size - and therefore fee market - too close, too sensitive to
the wild vagaries of the mining chip market.
Pay-to-future-miner has neutral, forward looking incentives worth
researching.
Another market dependency is even more direct.
Blocksize that can be bought with either difficulty or bitcoin has
incentives whose strength (though not direction) is subject to the
exchange rate. Hence those incentives are subject to the whims of fiat
holders, who can push the exchange rate around.
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
