Author: t. khan 2017-01-03 14:28:27
Published on: 2017-01-03T14:28:27+00:00
The email conversation revolves around the topic of block size limit and whether or not Block75 algorithm could solve the problems related to miner spam and growth in resource requirements. Luke Dashjr argues that using the growth rate over the last year as a model, Block75 would frequently decrease the limit, but the entire point of this is to allow for larger blocks over time with more transactions. However, t.k. points out that this does not solve the actual problems of either miner spam or growth in resource requirements, which are the entire purpose of the block size limit. Luke Dashjr asks for evidence of "miner spam" and its gain. He also asks to run the numbers on the Block75 algorithm and compare it with the growth rates of both. When asked about his definition of "spam", he defines it as anything that consumes more data than necessary to properly convey the intended transfer of value (bitcoins) from one entity to another, including all data that is not intended for such a purpose. By this definition, any transaction which transfers ownership of an asset is spam, but these are legitimate, fee-paying transactions. When t.k. states that he doubts the proposal will get consensus and finds it fundamentally broken, Luke Dashjr asks for specific details about what is broken. The proposal puts group X in control of a limit that exists for the sole purpose of restricting group X, according to t.k. However, Luke Dashjr disagrees and says that it gives miners less power than they have now, and there is no way for a miner to profit from manipulating the block size. As soon as such manipulation ended, Block75 would correct the max block size back to an appropriate level (defined as: average block 75% full).
Updated on: 2023-06-11T20:59:24.105458+00:00