Undeterred in his attempt to fork the Bitcoin network, Gavin Andresen today posted an update to his blog in which he attempts to spread fear by implying users will switch to "substitute goods" or in other words an altcoin unless an increase to the blocksize is made. That portion of his update, bolding by USGavin himself, reads:
I'll try to restate a point from that post that it seems some people are missing: you can't maximize the total price paid for something by simply limiting the supply of that something, especially if there are substitute goods available to which people can switch.
Citing a need for a concrete plan, Andresen's proposal reads as such:
Current rules if no consensus as measured by block.nVersion supermajority.
Supermajority defined as: 800 of last 1000 blocks have block.nVersion == 4
Once supermajority attained, block.nVersion < 4 blocks rejected.
After consensus reached: replace MAX_BLOCK_SIZE with a size calculated based on starting at 2^24 bytes (~16.7MB) as of 1 Jan 2015 (block 336,861) and doubling every 6*24*365*2 blocks -- about 40% year-on-year growth. Stopping after 10 doublings.
The perfect exponential function:
size = 2^24 * 2^((blocknumber-336,861)/(6*24*365*2))
... is approximated using 64-bit-integer math as follows:
double_epoch = 6*24*365*2 = 105120
(doublings, remainder) = divmod(blocknumber-336861, double_epoch)
if doublings >= 10 : (doublings, remainder) = (10, 0)
interpolate = floor ((2^24 << doublings) * remainder / double_epoch)
max_block_size = (2^24 << doublings) + interpolate
This is a piecewise linear interpolation between doublings, with maximum allowed size increasing a little bit every block.
But despite Andresen's claims for the need of a concrete plan to increase the blocksize limit before proceeding, he proves himself to be the shittiest concreter of all time by stating that he doesn't know how the security of the blockchain – arguably the most critical component to the ongoing health of the network – will be paid for in the future. Worse than that, Andresen is willing to risk the future of Bitcoin on possibilities he conjures up on the spot and which have no basis in reality. He reads:
So how will blockchain security get paid for in the future?
I honestly don't know. I think it is possible blocks containing tens of thousands of transactions, each paying a few millibits in fees (maybe because wallets round up change amounts to avoid creating dust and improve privacy) will be enough to secure the chain.
It is also possible big merchants and exchanges, who have a collective interest in a secure, well-functioning blockchain, will get together and establish assurance contracts to reward honest miners.
It is also possible that pigs might fly.