Errata + clarity (in bold):
>
>
>- So in my proposal, if 2000+ *blocks *have a size >= 60% *of the
>current limit*, this is an indication that real transaction volume has
>increased and we're approaching a time where block could be filled to
>capacity without an increase. The block
>
> If you want me to take your proposal seriously, you need to justify why
> 60% full is a good answer
>
Sure thing Gavin.
If you want blocks to be at least 60% full...
First off, I do not want blocks to be at least 60% full, so let me try and
explain where I got this number from
- The ide
1) It's not really clear to me how that would work, but assuming it does
then it will go into a basket of attacks that are possible but unlikely due
to the economic disincentives to do so.
2) That said, is the Achilles heal of this proposal the lack of a mechanism
to lower the block size?
3) Let
>
> The maximum block-size is one that can be filled at zero-cost by
> miners, and so allows some kinds of amplification of selfish-mining
> related attacks
A selfish mining attack would have to be performed for at least 2000 blocks
over a period of 4 weeks in order to achieve a meager 10% increa
Hi everyone,
I know many of us feel that the last thing the Bitcoin community needs is
another BIP related to the block size, but after a lot of reading and
commenting, I'd like to throw this idea out there.
I've already written it up as a BIP and would like some constructive
feedback/suggestions
