Author: Natanael 2017-03-31 04:14:30
Published on: 2017-03-31T04:14:30+00:00
On March 30, 2017, a proposal was made to alter the difficulty scaling of block size. The proposal suggested that larger blocks would mean greater difficulty, but this doesn't scale linearly, rather a little less than linearly. This means miners can take a penalty in difficulty to claim a greater number of high fee transactions in the same amount of time, effectively increasing "block size bitrate," and thus increasing their profits. However, when such profitable fees aren't available, they have to reduce the block size. In other words, users pay miners to increase block size, or don't pay, which reduces it. The proposal suggests that the process could be simplified if a fee pool is created through softfork code instead of hardfork code. However, the effect will be partially reduced by the mining subsidy until it reaches parity with average total fees. Instead of altering the difficulty calculation, the proposal suggests altering the percentage of fees that the miner gets to claim versus what they have to donate to the pool based on the size of the block they generated. Larger blocks would mean a smaller percentage of fees. This is another way to pay for block size, and on average, miners that generate smaller blocks take a share of what otherwise would be part of the mining profits of those generating larger blocks. It is necessary to keep pieces of the section from above on expected blocksize calculation because the closer one is to the expected blocksize, the more they keep. Thus, adjustments need to be made according to usage.
Updated on: 2023-06-11T23:02:53.210751+00:00