To be frank, this kind of thing would be better off attempted as a fork to a
new coin. Changing the max number of coins, the block reward, the difficulty
algo, mining policy and protocol is going to be a non-starter. Also, what are
the proposed quantifiavle benefits from removing timestamps? How
Interesting thoughts William, however much of what you describe already exists:
"I predict that this scheme would result in two markets: a backlog market and a
real-time market. Users targeting the backlog market would match the price of
the largest backlog section in order to be included in the
I concur with Mark's reply. Just to underscore this: Miners arent going to
bother to signaling or changing a setting unless they have to. Anything that
requires time--especially if requiring a restart/any time not mining or risks a
crash---reduces income. So why would they change any settings un
There is alot going on in this thread so I'll reply more broadly.
The original post and the assorted limit proposals---lead me to something
I think is worth reiterating: assuming Bitcoin adoption continues to grow at
similar or accelerating rates, then eventually the mempool is going to be
"10% say literally never. That seems like a significant disenfranchisement
and lack of consensus."
Certainly the poll results should be taken with a grain of salt and not a
definitive answer or measure .
However if we agree the poll has some worth (or even if not, then lets use it
as hyptothet
