According to my understanding of the Bitcoin white paper, miners, broadcasting blocks too costly for mining peers to process, run the risk of other miners rejecting those blocks in favor of less costly blocks. While I disagree with BU's dynamic block size approach, I'm of the thought miners should make their own assessments on the risks/rewards of publishing a certain block:
1) Large block propagation outpaced by smaller blocks
2) Transaction fee per block
3) Block acceptance by mining peers
4)I'm curious what people's views on a market-approach for block size, whereby transaction senders (buying space to fit said transaction into a block) and miners (selling space to fit said transactions into a block) find stable equilibrium sizes for the average block
1. lets say all the nodes have some speed test mechanism that reveals they can cope with upto 8mb blocks..
lets say they flag that for the next 3 months they will be ok with 2mb as an extra cautious preference.
POOLS will then make blocks BELOW 2mb. which will start off with 1.001mb just to test the water and see the orphan risk of going beyond old limits.
which means with baby steps of safety it will take many blocks to get to 2mb..
emphasis it took from 2009-2013 to get to 500k even though there was a 1mb limit. then took from 2013-15 to get to 0.999mb even though there was still the 1mb limit..
so.. for emphasis. DO NOT PRESUME instant 2mb or 8mb will be filled blocks 1 block after activation. as that WONT happen
2. pools DO NOT CARE about fee's. they are happy with the block reward income. the fee is just a bonus. not a need income.. do not presume pushing the fee war today has anything to do with the pools or to do with the community "helping" the pools. its not. we do not need to push the fee war today. it can naturally grow over the next couple DECADES!!
3) refer to 1. pools wont do anything that the majority of nodes cannot accept because it ends up as orphaned otherwise. if a pools block is orphaned. the pool will stop doing it because its just wasting money for an activity that literally gets thrown into the metaphorical trashcan
4) this can be done by developing a new 'priority formulae' that is nothing like the old useless formulla that just had a rich guy vs poor guy preference. and instead charges bloaters/spammers more.
i posted a quick idea of one where the formulae only cared about lean tx's and tx's that didnt want to respend every block. rewarding the lean infrequent spenders and punished the bloated frequent spenders
imagine that we decided its acceptable that people should have a way to get priority if they have a lean tx and signal that they only want to spend funds once a day. where if they want to spend more often costs rise, if they want bloated tx, costs rise.. which then allows those that just pay their rent once a month or buys groceries every couple days to be ok using onchain bitcoin.. and where the costs of trying to spam the network (every block) becomes expensive where by they would be better off using LN. (for things like faucet raiding every 5-10 minutes)
so lets think about a priority fee thats not about rich vs poor but about respend spam and bloat.
lets imagine we actually use the tx age combined with CLTV to signal the network that a user is willing to add some maturity time if their tx age is under a day, to signal they want it confirmed but allowing themselves to be locked out of spending for an average of 24 hours.
and where the bloat of the tx vs the blocksize has some impact too... rather than the old formulae with was more about the value of the tx
here is one example
as you can see its not about tx value. its about bloat and age.
this way
those not wanting to spend more than once a day and dont bloat the blocks get preferential treatment onchain.
if you are willing to wait a day but your taking up 1% of the blockspace. you pay moreif you want to be a spammer spending every block. you pay the priceand if you want to be a total ass-hat and be both bloated and respending often you pay the ultimate priceyes its not perfect. but atleast lets think about using CODE to choose whats acceptable. rather than playing bankers economic value games of rich guys always win, that way we are no longer pushing the third world countries out of using bitcoins mainnet.
