Yet another possible solution for the blocksize debate.

[shorena]

So really the whole blocksize debate is just to help the miners and not the users.

well they are the backbone, without miners there is no bitcoin, that is a fact, but merchants are important to because without them there is no adoption, but there is still bitcoin, after all there were no merchants at the beginning and bitcoin was alive, but there were miners

so you can draw your own conclusions...

Yes, there are complex dependencies between miners, users, developers, merchants and I would also add node operators now. On top of that every person can belong to any combination of these 5 groups. Bitcoin is not going to succeed if a solution only works for a few of the groups, but not for others.

[Amph]

i'm just saying that if a compromise with all the hard fork/soft fork drama is not reached, then we know who is going to win, and bitcoin will remain a niche market

but it will not die as many think..

[Lauda]

That would not make sense because the ~10 minute interval would be broken.
-snip-

No, miners would just fill the blocks with TX they created. The "efficiency" can be simulated hence the average interval would not be broken, miners would create pseudo filled blocks instead of actually filled because its impossible to distinguish between a "legit" TX and one just created to fill the block to the minimum requirement.

I was working under the system that they would not try to cheat the system.

Yes, there are complex dependencies between miners, users, developers, merchants and I would also add node operators now. On top of that every person can belong to any combination of these 5 groups. Bitcoin is not going to succeed if a solution only works for a few of the groups, but not for others.

Correct. If you lose either one of those then you lose Bitcoin. Nodes are quite important IMO, without the majority of them Bitcoin would lose its decentralization.

OK - that would be counter-productive, so I'd better forget that idea.

You can close this thread if you want to (look at the lower left corner of the thread).

[Jet Cash]

I'll close the thread if you think it has run its course, but some new points seem to have crept in, and I hope it can still be constructive. Minimum block sizes is obviously a losing concept. Variable block sizes may be a valid alternative though. I'd also like to explore the PoS concept to peg value to side chains. I tried to start a thread about this, but didn't get any replies.

Actually variable block sizes is a bit of a red herring atm. Should I leave the thread open for a couple of hours to see if it still gets some interest, and then close it?

[Lauda]

Variable block sizes may be a valid alternative though. Actually variable block sizes is a bit of a red herring atm. Should I leave the thread open for a couple of hours to see if it still gets some interest, and then close it?

Well technically it was mostly called a dynamic block size limit. There were a lot of discussions about it in the past (mostly before XT and Classic drama). It seems like it was mostly forgotten but the proposals are still there (BIP's). You could either leave the thread open and edit your original post (if you want to discuss this) as members tend to ignore other posts (spammers do) which could derail the thread, or close it and open a new one about dynamic block sizes. You could always do some research but finding the right information might be tricky as it is buried under thousands of posts. Here are a few links for you:
BIP 106 - Dynamically Controlled Bitcoin Block Size Max Cap
BIP 107 - Dynamic limit on the block size
ELI5: Why doesn't someone program a dynamic block size for bitcoin?