Quote from: adamstgBit on September 04, 2015, 04:13:20 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 04, 2015, 03:53:23 PM

Quote from: johnyj on September 04, 2015, 03:29:01 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 04, 2015, 03:10:09 PM

Quote from: johnyj on September 04, 2015, 02:34:01 PM

By the way, I'm seeing rising interest of a flex cap which only raises the block size when fee collected in each block is higher than block reward

interesting idea. but to up the 1MB limit, we need fees at ~0.0125BTC ( ~2.5$ ) if you assume 2000tx (~1MB worth) per block.

that a pretty high fee! so much for "virtual free transactions."

and at that point a shit load of TX wouldnt happen on the network, this method would very quickly make bitcoin no able to handle micropayments.

maybe if fee where >1BTC the limit would be pushed up would be more reasonable.

Ok then maybe 0.1 block reward is better. Block reward will cut by half next year, so eventually fee will rise pass block reward, it is just a matter of time.

Another concern: Block reward halving every 4 years is very drastic. When the block reward get enough small, more and more miners will be shut down, since it does not give miners enough incentive to mine when majority of coins were mined. Since early days of mining, many miners were incentivized to acquire a big enough pie of the total coin supply. But after mining reward cut by half several times, this incentive will not hold, so it is important to have decent fee income to keep the miners on board. I guess at 6.25 btc block reward the fee could be getting close to block reward

its not so much the amount of BTC the block reward has that is the incentive to mine as it is the $ value that BTC amount represents. so we'd need to see price double every 4 years to keep miners happy i guess. sounds resnable.

for miners to get the most out of the fee's, they should try and target a fee where 80% of current transactions would be willing to pay. you dont want fee's to high, and you don't want them too low, a fee where 80% of poeple agree with ensures the "price is right". so take the avg TX size ( i guess this would be like 0.1BTC??? ) assume 80% of people are willing to pay no more than 1%, and you get a fee of 0.001BTC ~23cents.

sounds about right.

full 1MB blocks would give them 2BTC
full 8MB blocks would give them 16BTC

conclusion,
the flex cap should only raise the block size when fee collected in each block is higher than :
(avg_TX_size_BTC * 0.01 * num_max_tx_pre_block)BTC

this idea is pretty cool because its allows miners to collect more fee's based on supply and demand ( available space on each block ) and at the same time we can put a cap on how much they can use this excuse to up the fee.

some really indepth evaluation as to what the MAX fee should be before block limit is raised should be thought up tho.

this formula needs to consider what the network will need in $ terms to securely sustain itself solely on fees in the future.

maybe all this can help solve the question of how big a block should be to strike the right balance between keeping mining affordable and decentralized, and at the same time provide a low cost TXs

block limit debate now boils down to: how much mining centralization should we allow in the name of cheep transactions.

IMO it should cost ~5cents and mining should be allowed to be as centralized as needed to provide 5cent fees.

so i'm now thinking only up the limit when tx fee is (some crazy formula that allows for a MAX fee of 5-10cents)

this is annoyingly interesting wasting alot of time here lately Grin

.

imagine this the limit is raised and suddenly TX fees come down do 1cent pre TX, maybe the block size should be set lower in that case so that fees are 5cents again.

difficulty is retargeted to keep blocks coming out at ~10min intervals
block size is retargeted to keep TX cost at ~5cents.

Booya, we've solved it call the devs!
lmao

determining the block size by targeting a tx fee limit is the most fucktarded idea I've come accross with so far.

but yes by all means, call the devs!!