It would seem that there could be a simple mathematical progressive increase/decrease, which is based on the factual block chain needs and realities of the time that can work forever into the future.
Here is an example that can come close to Gavin's first proposal of 50% increase per year.
If average block size of last 2 weeks is 60-75% of the maximum, increase maximum 1%, if >75% increase 2%
If average block size of last 2 weeks is 25-40% of the maximum decrease maximum 1%, if <29% decrease 2%
Something like this, would have no external dependencies, would adjust based on what future events may come, and won't expire or need to be changed.
These percentage numbers are ones that I picked arbitrarily. They are complete guesses and so I don't like them anymore than any other number. This is just to create a model of the sort of thing that would be better than extrapolating. To do even better, we can do a regression analysis of previous blocks to see where we would be now and tune it further from there.
This may be manipulable: miners with good bandwidth can start filling the blocks to capacity, to increase the max and push miners with smaller bandwidth out of competition.
Agreed. And thank you for contributing.
It is offered as an example of the sort of thing that can work, rather than a finished product.
It is merely "better" not best. I don't think we know of something that will work yet.
By better, I mean that Gavin gets his +50%/year, iff it is needed, and not if it isn't. And if circumstances change, so does the limit.
If it is 100% manipulated, it is only as bad as Gavin's first proposal. (+4% or so)
That of course could only happen if miners with good bandwidth win all block and also want to manipulate.
If we fear manipulation, we can add anomaly dropping and exclude the 10% most extreme outside of standard variance (so that fully padded and empty blocks are dropped out of the calculations).
It would be good to avoid creating any perverse incentives entirely wherever possible.
And again, the percentages chosen here are samples only, arbitrarily chosen. A regression analysis of the block chain ought be employed to determine where we would be with this sort of thing as well as how it would affect the path forward.
The point here is to allow market forces to dictate. If some miners want to shrink block size to make transactions more precious and extract fees, others will want to get those fees and increase block size. We want something that can work in perpetuity, not a temporary fix which may get adjusted centrally whenever the whim arises.
Our guide must be math and measurement, not central committees, no matter how smart they may be.