15:34:01 <fluffypony> re: the spam attack, I think we should model out the dynamic fee adjuster so that it cools down much slower than it ramps up
15:34:16 <fluffypony> argh not dynamic fee, dynamic block size limiter
15:34:43 <fluffypony> like if it cooled down 4x slower than it speeds up then an attacker / abuser wouldn't be able to yoyo it to reduce their costs
15:38:01 <sech1> IIRC ArticMine commented on this somewhere, but I can't find it now.
17:11:47 <m-relay> <p​reland:monero.social> My question that I had thought of earlier today is: does the block size increase linearly?
17:11:48 <m-relay> <p​reland:monero.social> If so, it should probably be changed to something more exponential, as the number of transactions happening follows trends exponentially more than linearly
17:15:07 <m-relay> <r​ucknium:monero.social> preland: It depends on how much people are spending on transactions. High-fee txs make the block size increase faster. If everyone is paying the minimum fee (20 nanoneros/byte), then according to spackle's analysis the rate of increase is about f(x) = x^x. Very nonlinear.
17:15:54 <m-relay> <p​reland:monero.social> Hmm
17:17:02 <m-relay> <r​ucknium:monero.social> That's what we've seen on stressnet. I don't have an exact equation for what we've seen empirically on stressnet, but getting from the base of 300kb per block to 600KB takes a while. Then when we reach 5MB, it is quick to get to 6MB.
17:23:50 <m-relay> <j​effro256:monero.social> Fluffypony: I disagree. It should cool down very quickly like it does so that spikes (natural or otherwise) in tx volume are treated correctly: like spikes. The block size limiter should not stay high for temporary spikes as this opens the door to more abuse
17:24:44 <m-relay> <j​effro256:monero.social> I much prefer yoyoing to permanently large blocks
17:25:32 <m-relay> <j​effro256:monero.social> Also, yoyoing does not reduce cost for the attacker since the most expensive part of a spam attack is pushing the block reward into the penalty zone
18:58:27 * fluffypony ponders
19:34:36 <m-relay> <g​ingeropolous:monero.social> "the long tail" is how i always thought of it. And the blocks wouldn't be permanently larger... sure, during a spam attack they might, but the blocks will only fill with transactions that are available.
19:34:51 <m-relay> <g​ingeropolous:monero.social> and during a spam attack, it might allow normal users to get the experience they expect
19:35:36 <m-relay> <g​ingeropolous:monero.social> spams gonna happen. to me its just a matter of how usable the network remains during the "spam"