Topic: [POLL FINISHED] The block size limit controversy: a proper poll (30 days) - page 4. (Read 4817 times)
February 21, 2013, 12:26:59 PM
It's a tough call for sure and it will be nigh impossible to really know if we've struck the right balance or not until it's to late. It's very clear that we need to have more transactions per second possible than we have right now if we want BTC to become what we all want it to become. The concerns about giving too much power to only those with infinite storage space/super computers are legitimate as well.
February 21, 2013, 12:01:35 PM
I've actually suggested (in two different threads already) a very rough metric that could be used in conjunction with difficulty to regulate the max block size based on how efficiently blocks propagate across the network. It is hardly the best metric, but I think the tying in with difficulty is feasible.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1538386
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1538386
February 21, 2013, 11:53:28 AM
If it's dynamic, it must depend on total transaction fees paid, or difficulty, or both.
It must not depend on number of transactions or size of transactions.
transaction fees paid and difficulty based is exploitable by large mining cartels. You don't want cartels right? It must not depend on number of transactions or size of transactions.
February 21, 2013, 11:42:44 AM
If it's dynamic, it must depend on total transaction fees paid, or difficulty, or both.
It must not depend on number of transactions or size of transactions.
It must not depend on number of transactions or size of transactions.
February 21, 2013, 11:29:38 AM
Self adjusting algorithm like difficult. We don't know what the future brings (hardware and demand wise) changing it again might be even harder, so a solution that possibly fixed this once and for all.
+1
February 21, 2013, 11:12:44 AM
Self adjusting algorithm like difficult. We don't know what the future brings (hardware and demand wise) changing it again might be even harder, so a solution that possibly fixed this once and for all.
Difficulty adjustment is to make hashing competitive. If you allow for bandwidth adjustment you make that competitive as well. All adjustment methods are exploitable. Do you want people to compete on bandwidth? 
February 21, 2013, 11:07:35 AM
what do you mean? change it right now or eventually long term if it becomes clear we need to?
February 21, 2013, 11:00:17 AM
Self adjusting algorithm like difficult. We don't know what the future brings (hardware and demand wise) changing it again might be even harder, so a solution that possibly fixed this once and for all.
February 21, 2013, 10:52:51 AM
2012-03-11:
It seems that nobody is voting anymore, so it makes sense to lock the poll.
I hope everybody find the results satisfying, I for sure do.
It seems that nobody is voting anymore, so it makes sense to lock the poll.
I hope everybody find the results satisfying, I for sure do.
February 21, 2013, 10:48:59 AM
Because the previous poll sucked hard, i made a new, proper one.
Choose wisely, your future may depend on it.
Choose wisely, your future may depend on it.
Jump to: