Quote from: smooth on June 21, 2015, 04:57:11 AM

1. There is nothing in the chart that relates the growth rate to any underlying technological limits at all. It is like a chart of global population extrapolating unlimited growth forward without any consideration of food supply, water, population density, etc.

Thanks for the feedback, Smooth. I agree. Perhaps I should call that curve the "optimistic scenario" and show other possible scenarios like (a) slow growth, and (b) failure/collapse (perhaps in a fainter colour).

Quote from: smooth on June 21, 2015, 04:57:11 AM

2. Why would you increase the slope starting now? If anything one should be conservative about sustainable growth rates going forward relative to the past, in the absence of clear knowledge of what scaling bottlenecks might exist.

Good eye. I did this just because I like round numbers (too much) and the two slopes are exactly 100% growth per year and 100% growth every two years. If I add the two less optimistic curves, I'll keep this the same. Otherwise, I'll reduce the slope to match the current growth rate precisely.

Quote from: Adrian-x on June 21, 2015, 05:46:54 AM

I would like to see one more white label. The introduction of the 1MB limit to limit spam.
maller blocks that propagate fast, and later once block subsidies have diminished there is a pressure to include and optimize fees.

Thanks for the feedback, Adrian. I agree. Annotating the introduction of the 1MB limit as an anti-spam measure gives context to why the limit exists in the first place (a point Konrad Graf made in the post Cypherdoc linked to).

Quote from: Adrian-x on June 21, 2015, 06:36:00 AM

Some other data that may be relevant in presenting the opportunity for TX fees is actually including the projected block halving and mark each halving with the relative inflation rate at each occasion.

Yes, I think this would be good too. TPTB_need_war was already confused thinking that the block subsidy would have become "so minuscule it has essentially stopped funding mining" by 2032 Wink

Quote from: solex on June 21, 2015, 06:06:54 AM

One suggestion. Is it worth mentioning IBLT because by the time 16MB blocks are being mined they will likely be taking up just 500KB of bandwidth overhead to propagate.

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 21, 2015, 06:13:20 AM

Well if he's gonna mention IBLT he might as well mention pruning...

Thanks Solex and Cypherdoc. Any ideas how something about IBLTs and pruning could be included?