bruce have fun in miami
just be sure to highlight the 6 points i make in post
#7 and the hardware wallet wristband idea in post
#11oh and lastly. can the devs really try to do a different TX priority calculation that actually works for the purpose its intended.
EG not biased towards rich holders able to spam blocks every block just by holding 144btc with a 250byte tx
while pushing developing countries out as 'spam' if they held 0.1btc and required to wait a week for their 250byte tx to register as priority
EG instead of the old
(total tx value*confirmations)/tx bytesize
with target of 57,600,000
which is a richman/poorman emphasis calculation.
change it to be something more fair and actually practical at solving the problem of tx's(bloat and regular spending spam attempts)
EG
((age/txbytes)*(blocksize/txbytes))
where the target number is set based on mempool demand by a separate target calculation
which is more about bloat control.. NOT income snobbery..
where low coin maturity(age) and higher byte size penalizes them
and it also factors in future blocksize increases over time to actually gives more of an allowance in the priority as blocksize buffer increases.
but dont worry about my example. just tell the devs to sort themselves out and do some code rules instead of using fee's as the motivator. because fee's dont motivate people to be more leaner with their tx's or less spammier.. it just makes honourable people pay more due malicious spammers.
i say this below with a slight edge of humour although its content has got merit to think about:
if anyone starts rebuttling about gigabyte blocksizes. please slap them with a reality stick or a wet fish and remind them that the actual proposals offered are actually workable and within reason.. no one has proposed gigabyte blocks.. not tomorrow, not next year not even the next decade.
if core actually help the community with dynamic block release starting at 2-4mb this year. to allow unbiased non-bandcamp creating equal and free choice..
then later once activated
if nodes cannot cope with a certain size(EG 8mb+) in say 2020
the nodes will not flag desire for a certain size (EG 8mb+ in say 2020) meaning a consensus wont go beyond what is capable by the majority.
consensus itself can solve the 'what if it gets too big' problem by the nodes who are struggling, not voting to go big. it does not need devs with secret agenda's holding it bake using fake doomsdays to scare the community...
let the nodes decide..
thus pools wont push the activation if they know nodes cant cope(yep i said nodes, not devs). 2-4mb is already deemed safe so no point holding back 1mb.
and it will grow naturally when the majority can cope with more.
there is no point limiting natural growth purely with potsmoking fuelled fake stores of unnatural and stupidly irrational growth doomsdays. when the community have only proposed rational and safe numbers..(2-4mb)
bigger edge if humour:
maybe next year rename is to the 'satoshi roundtable' to 'blockchain closet' to emphasise its no longer about bitcoin(satoshi) and its also behind closed doors
