Quote from: menkaur on March 30, 2017, 12:56:55 PM

I don't like proposals which involve "voting" of any sort.

I think that the blocksize should be controlled by people who generate transactions

That would just work out to voting with money Sad

I don't understand the dislike of miner voting systems. It assumes that miners want substantially different things than users, but I don't see any real evidence that the differences are significant. Maybe they are, but I have yet to see someone show that they are with data or game theory.

Quote from: menkaur on March 30, 2017, 12:56:55 PM

And the best way to achieve it would be like follows:

1. Set unlimited blocksize limit
2. Calculate average block size over past 20k blocks
3. If a miner wants to create a block larger than the average, he'll have to solve a puzzle with exponentially higher difficulty. Something like Exp[(new_block_size/average_block_size -1)]*difficulty

This setup increases probability that the miners will attempt to create larger blocks only if consumers (e.g. people who create transactions) actually need them and signal that the larger blocks are needed by posting transactions with larger fees

I've seen proposals like that before. I mean, they're better than nothing. But miners accidentally create higher-difficulty blocks all the time, so the size could continuously increase as well, just restrained by randomness. Might as well just give it a time-bound scaling ratio then.