No comment on this?
Quote
One example of a better way would be to use a sliding window of x number of blocks 100+ deep and basing max allowed size on some percentage over the average while dropping anomalous outliers from that calculation. Using some method that is sensitive to the reality as it may exist in the unpredictable future give some assurance that we won't just be changing this whenever circumstances change.
Do it right, do it once.
Do it right, do it once.
That does not address the core of people's fears, which is that big, centralized mining concerns will collaborate to push smaller competitors off the network by driving up the median block size.
There isn't a way to predict what networks will look like in the future, other than to use the data of the future to do just that. Where we are guessing we ought acknowledge that.
Yes, that is a good point, made by other people in the other thread about this. A more conservative rule would be fine with me, e.g.
Fact: average "good" home Internet connection is 250GB/month bandwidth.
Fact: Internet bandwidth has been growing at 50% per year for the last 20 years.
(if you can find better data than me on these, please post links).
So I propose the maximum block size be increased to 20MB as soon as we can be sure the reference implementation code can handle blocks that large (that works out to about 40% of 250GB per month).
Increase the maximum by 40% every two years (really, double every two years-- thanks to whoever pointed out 40% per year is 96% over two years)
Since nothing can grow forever, stop doubling after 20 years.