Quote from: Peter R on August 13, 2015, 01:36:58 AM

Quote from: brg444 on August 13, 2015, 12:52:08 AM

Quote from: Peter R on August 12, 2015, 11:12:19 PM

Quote from: brg444 on August 12, 2015, 10:59:26 PM

That is all true only if Q* stays within the range of your assumptions.

That seems like a strange way of wording what I already said: "As long as the limit is far above the transaction demand (much greater than Q* in the figure), then the supply is constrained economically rather than algorithmically."

See this is exactly what I'm talking about. Pretending you can predict future transaction demand and set an arbitrary limit "much greater". Sounds like something out of the FED.

You've really lost me here. If the growth in demand for transactions is greater than what is permitted by BIP101, then we'll bump into the higher limit, and fees will increase more than what would be implied by my paper. In other words "as long as the limit is far above the transaction demand (much greater than Q* in the figure), then the supply is constrained economically rather than algorithmically."

I don't understand your concern here. What would be so bad about hitting the higher (and constantly increasing) limit earlier than historical extrapolation would predict? [not that I think that's likely, but still]

Quote from: brg444 on August 13, 2015, 12:52:08 AM

To then go back to our previous argument, let's pretend that your 8 MBs blocks get filled a year before your scheduled doubling then what happens?

Then fees would be more than what's suggested in my paper. What would be wrong with that [in the unlikely event it happens]? In fact, it would just be something like the realization of the "high" growth curve shown here:

Quote from: brg444 on August 13, 2015, 12:52:08 AM

I guess my point is that modeling transactional demand based on historical growth is a surefire way to shoot yourself in the foot.

There are several "transactional demands" modelled in the above graph. They would all work fine with BIP101. It's just that in the case of the "high growth" curve, the fee market might begin to be affected by the block size limit, rather than strictly due to economic supply and demand.

How do you propose this is "shooting yourself in the foot?"

don't try to be logical with him. you'll lose every time.

you've already said that your endgame would be to see no limit like i have stated many times. if only to keep the Cripplecoiners from freaking out, your paper tries to model an upper bound to prevent us from bumping up against the limit so as to avoid spammers entering the mkt near that point (at low cost to them) to try and clog up the network. ideally, there would be no limit to eliminate this risk entirely. but even with a limit set so high, if tx's filled blocks that large, that would be a great problem to have compared to the current handicap of 1MB.

IOW, he wants to penalize you for trying just b/c you might not be perfect. therefore, you are just like a central banker. Roll Eyes