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.
This can be easily gamed by stuffing transactions into the blockchain, shutting out smaller players prematurely.
Thank you for contributing.
This was already mentioned earlier, you may have missed it. Yes it can possibly be gamed in the way you mention, it is just unlikely, unprofitable, and ineffective to do so.
This effect of such an "attack" is limited by
1) Anomaly dropping
2) The % of blocks won
3) The disadvantage to those that do so by requiring transmission of larger blocks
4) Even if this "attack" is performed with 100% success by
all miners, the max size only grows only a bit over 50% per year anyway (with the proposed numbers - so worse case scenario, it is about the same as Gavin's proposal).
5) Counter-balanced perhaps by other miners may want to shrink the limit and make inclusion in a block more valuable?
If you think that these factors are insufficient disincentive, and the benefits of doing such an attack are still worth it, please help us to better understand why that is?
I maintain that I do not think we have the best answer yet, so these criticisms are valuable. This is simply better than other proposals we have seen so far simply because it accommodates for an unpredictable future, but IMHO, not yet good enough for implementation. Regression testing on previous block chain and some more game theory analysis.