Quote from: RoadStress on March 11, 2015, 12:07:45 AM

Quote from: onemorexmr on March 10, 2015, 11:51:19 PM

a decentralized system should not rely on a centralized failover. its good that its there, but i can't accept this as an argument to "try out things"

How do you propose that we build an better/perfect financial system to replace the current one? By not making any change?

Also I think that you missed the part that hitting the hardware limits would be spotted very soon and we can make the necessary changes to not be a real problem anymore. If the network can't handle big blocks then we can create smaller blocks. It is not mandatory that we create huge blocks all the time.

i didnt say we should not make changes. in fact i am in favor of bigger blocks (heck even unlimited; let the miners decide)

but my problem with the current proposal is that i think we need an incentive for miners to make smaller blocks. they have that incentive atm but with 1BLT/headers first it is vastly reduced.

i dont want that incentive because of hardware limits. i want that because i think we need a fee based market in the future which gets destroyed if there is no penalty for miners making bigger blocks.

i'd love to see a proposal which would do the following (just an example; numbers just fallen out of my head):
- if a miner makes a block bigger than 1mb he cant collect the whole reward/fees
- the part of the reward which the miner could not claim should be distributed to nodes (a way i can imagine to do this is that the first node relaying a transaction encodes his address in it and gets a part of the reward)

sadly i lack the skills to really make a bip out of it (or to even outline how it can really work)

btw davout was the person who pointed that out to me originally; but i think he is right on this one.