Why not? Mining pools and nodes are too lazy to set upper limit by themselves.
Anyways actual block sizes are determined by user demands and miner supplies if the upper block size limit is always bigger than the market block size. The actual block size increases because more users use BTC and transacting and miners accepting the larger size considering the balance the risk of orphan and reward of more fee. The market equilibrium should decide the actual block size.
The upper size should only exist as a spam protection, not be used to slowdown the growth of network.
Therefore, it is waste of human resource to monitor to constantly manually change the upper limit. It is just introducing unnecessary politics into the ecosystem.
Like the Bitcoin difficulty, the upper blocksize should be automatically dynamically adjusted by an algorithm according to the natural growth of the actual block size. For example, we can set like this. "Every two weeks, the upper blocksizes will be set as twice of the average size of the actual blocksize of the last two week." The simple algorithm like this is all we need. In this case, only when the transaction amount grows more than 2x within two weeks, we might see the high fees and slower confirmation, but probably we can tolerate it since we are experience much longer chocking right now.
Ethereum and Monero have dynamic block size limit and seems like working well- Ethereum got similar number of the transaction but the fees are much cheaper because of that.
Anyways actual block sizes are determined by user demands and miner supplies if the upper block size limit is always bigger than the market block size. The actual block size increases because more users use BTC and transacting and miners accepting the larger size considering the balance the risk of orphan and reward of more fee. The market equilibrium should decide the actual block size.
The upper size should only exist as a spam protection, not be used to slowdown the growth of network.
Therefore, it is waste of human resource to monitor to constantly manually change the upper limit. It is just introducing unnecessary politics into the ecosystem.
Like the Bitcoin difficulty, the upper blocksize should be automatically dynamically adjusted by an algorithm according to the natural growth of the actual block size. For example, we can set like this. "Every two weeks, the upper blocksizes will be set as twice of the average size of the actual blocksize of the last two week." The simple algorithm like this is all we need. In this case, only when the transaction amount grows more than 2x within two weeks, we might see the high fees and slower confirmation, but probably we can tolerate it since we are experience much longer chocking right now.
Ethereum and Monero have dynamic block size limit and seems like working well- Ethereum got similar number of the transaction but the fees are much cheaper because of that.
