Quote from: Gavin Andresen on March 05, 2015, 09:18:27 PM

Quote from: onemorexmr on March 03, 2015, 11:49:18 PM

i am nearly convinced now that a big block size together with 1BLT is a threat for bitcoin as miners dont have any incentive to make smaller blocks.

Why do you want miners to have an incentive to make smaller blocks?

Smaller blocks means fewer transactions, so fewer opportunities to collect fees, so less profit.

Miner profit in fiat currency = number of transactions * average transaction fee * btc-to-fiat exchange rate

Experience (and common sense) says that more usage of Bitcoin means a higher btc-to-fiat exchange rate, so if you want to maximize miner's fee revenue then increasing the number of transactions is the obvious way to do it.

If you think that putting an artificial cap on the number of transactions will increase overall miner profit, then I urge you to find a Real Economist and talk to them about the wisdom of trying to use production quotas to keep prices artificially high.

i dont want any artificial cap. in fact i want an unlimited blocksize (but i think your proposal is ok).

i just think that we need an incentive for a miner not to put any transaction in a block but only those which pay a high enough to cover his(!) costs.

my reasoning:
- good distribution of bitcoin nodes through various asn (which also means countries which dont have a very good connection or cheap vps's as we are used to)
- higher costs for transaction spammers

i do just fear (as explained above) that without any incentive for smaller blocks miners will take any fee paying transaction.

i am not really sure about the consequences of 1BLT/headers first. some people say that its a O(1) operation others say it isnt

if it isnt: all is fine, because i feel that this is incentive enough.

(i know O-notation does not really fit bandwith; but i am sure you'll get what i mean).