Author: James Hilliard 2016-12-11 21:55:55
Published on: 2016-12-11T21:55:55+00:00
The sender of the email is arguing that there will always be transactions available to mine due to the unbounded demand for blockspace even as fees approach zero. The size of mempool is static and minrelaytxfee is dynamic, so lower fee transactions get accepted into the mempool once higher fee ones are mined. The sender also argues that not sending a transaction would not make blocks smaller since other transactions would still be available. The receiver of the email suggests that miners would try to max out the blocks they mine in order to maximize transaction fees. However, they point out that the proposal allows for over a 7x increase in block size, which could cause major problems if it doubles every year. The sender responds by clarifying that Block75 is not exponential scaling, as each subsequent year's increase is significantly less than the previous year's. To reach the maximum increase in the first year, all blocks would have to be completely full and transactions would have to increase at the same rate. The sender concludes that realistically, the max block size will grow and shrink at a much slower pace, especially with SegWit. Finally, the receiver of the email argues that users have no way to stop the miners from continuously increasing block size, but the sender points out that they could simply refrain from sending transactions.
Updated on: 2023-06-11T20:51:19.796143+00:00