Quote from: nikkisnowe on March 01, 2017, 01:54:43 AM

Quote from: DooMAD on February 24, 2017, 06:57:58 PM

I think we should activate SegWit and then do something like this. The bizarre fixation everyone seems to have with the blocksize being a whole number is silly, when there's literally nothing wrong with 1.1mb or even 1.21mb if we adjust by 10% increments. Fixed, rigid caps are also ill conceived. The most pragmatic approach is a conservative and algorithmic dynamic blocksize with built in safeguards to prevent gaming the system.

This is what Bitcoin Unlimited does. There is no fixed cap but it adjusts the block size based on the historical number of transactions in the network and adjusts itself both up and down to accommodate. Are you aware of this? I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm seriously asking the question. This adjustable blocksize is one of the reasons that I'm in agreement with BU and if people are made aware of this aspect of BU, they might become more receptive of it. It also shows that if many are not aware of this aspect of BU, it shows that Roger Ver and other supporters are not doing a good job of promoting, and educating people on the benefits of BU.

My understanding was that node users specified the block size they were willing to accept in their own configuration. Everything was chosen arbitrarily by the user regardless of what might be happening on the network in the real world. If that's not correct and there is an algorithmic element based on traffic and fees, they absolutely need to make that clearer because it's the first I've heard of it. If it is algorithmic, what's the formula and how does it compare to the one I linked? I'm curious to know if it's still stuck in the realm of whole numbers for no particular reason.