Quote from: Meni Rosenfeld on June 07, 2015, 08:21:15 PM

Quote from: vane91 on June 07, 2015, 08:02:49 PM

Quote from: ArticMine on June 02, 2015, 09:12:50 PM

The key here is how is T set. If T is fixed then 2T becomes the hard limit and the problem remains. If T is set based on an some average of previously mined blocks then this may address the problem

this

actually, just use twice the average blocksize of the last two weeks.

And you don't really need any of this complicated system.

1. Floating block limits have their own set of problems, and may result in a scenario where there is no effective limit at all.

2. Even if you do place a floating block limit, it doesn't really relieve of the need for an elastic system. Whatever the block limit is, tx demand can approach it and then we have a crash landing scenario. We need a system that gracefully degrades when approaching the limit, whatever it is.

1) i beg to differ, so long as the timespan is sufficient that only a LONG lasting spam attack or other growth could cause massive block caps. Personally, i think as long as it averages over at least 1-2 weeks, thats sufficient to prevent any sort of rampant spamming.
2) if the cap is set at double the recent volumes, it should provide enough room for fuller blocks so long as we dont see 5x network growth within less than a 1-2 month timespan. even then, the cap would grow over time and lower prioriy transactions may just be pushed back a few blocks. fees take priority until everything balances out after a few days/weeks

(I suggest 2.5x the average of 40days, or 6000 blocks) OR ((2x the last 6000 blocks) + (0.5x the last 400 blocks)). The second allows for slightly faster growth if there's sudden demand for room.