Do you think we should cap the block size with your variable block size scheme? You do realize that an increase in block size or transactions per block will inevitably result in the blocks being propagated through the network slowly or a far slower validation. This makes it unsuitable for smaller miners to be mining and will have to be directly connected to at least half of the network to achieve a lower stale rate. There is a reason why the blocks were capped at 1MB, and that any scheme should strive for a reasonable block size that doesn't compromise the security of Bitcoin. An increase in the stale rates also results in a decrease in the perceived security, as there can be multiple conflicting blocks at the same height.
I don't disagree that we need a block size increase. What I'm thinking of is a sustainable block size increase that balances the tradeoffs to the benefits.
As you mentioned earlier..
The issue surrounding block size has really been discussed over and over again and I doubt we would reach a new conclusion by doing it again.
Unless the block size limit is decided at the protocol level we will have to have this debate over and over again! By having a self-regulated system we wouldn't have that problem. So what is your solution?
I'll just bring some adjustments to mine;
new block size limit = previous block size limit + (
current total fee - previous total fee)
current avg fee
I know this calculation may not be very accurate but that's a starting point. I don't think we should forbid people from owning
BTC because some miners aren't able to keep up with the demand.