📅 Original date posted:2015-08-14
📝 Original message:On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 12:35 AM, Jorge Timón <jtimon at jtimon.cc> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Venzen Khaosan <venzen at mail.bihthai.net> wrote:
>> 4) General, undefined fear that something bad is going to happen when
>> nodes choke up on a backlog of transactions.
>> - - no specific symptoms are pointed at but presumably there is
>> "pre-traumatic stress" at play.
>> - - Bitcoin-based businesses are going to lose money, customers and
>> potentially fail
>> - - people will flee Bitcoin for another cryptocoin and Bitcoin will be
>> left in the corner, collecting dust and memories of it will fade as
>> SuperCoin with its big blocks becomes all things to all people.
>
> I believe thisbelongs in 2, not really sure if 2.1 or 2.2 since it's
> related to both.
I was tempted to add it as a sub-sub-risk in both, since both things
need to be solved before that stop being a concern. But they may be
more things to do to solve that so I'm listing it as a separate
sub-risk in 2:
2.3) Big list of valid unconfirmed transactions
resulting list:
1) Potential indirect consequence of rising fees.
1.1) Lowest fee transactions (currently free transactions) will become
more unreliable.
1.2) People will migrate to competing systems (PoW altcoins) with lower fees.
1.3) Layer 2 settlements become more expensive
1.4) Less usage than we could have had with a bigger size
1.4.1) More regulation pressure
1.4.2) Not enough fees when subsidy is lower
2) Software problem independent of a concrete block size that needs to
be solved anyway, often specific to Bitcoin Core (ie other
implementations, say libbitcoin may not necessarily share these
problems).
2.1) Bitcoin Core's mempool is unbounded in size and can make the program
crash by using too much memory.
2.2) There's no good way to increase the fee of a transaction that is
taking too long to be mined without the "double spending" transaction
with the higher fee being blocked by most nodes which follow Bitcoin
Core's default policy for conflicting spends replacements (aka "first
seen" replacement policy).
2.3) Big list of valid unconfirmed transactions
Jorge Timón [ARCHIVE] /
npub1fx…cl2d8
2023-06-07 15:46:39
in reply to nevent1q…88e4
Author Public Key
npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8Published at
2023-06-07 15:46:39Event JSON
{
"id": "011ee244240774523dc024a1120dc3823f6339e53ee5b180d4aafb99823bb668",
"pubkey": "498a711971f8a0194289aee037a4c481a99e731b5151724064973cc0e0b27c84",
"created_at": 1686152799,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"ed48e8b49c34ef64a5a6814f13a41de999188447a7a574d6553030c329674671",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"882a40e40f6bcdcd7d0abd5d07c97106f808d474d878e86865f53aed12ac643a",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"498a711971f8a0194289aee037a4c481a99e731b5151724064973cc0e0b27c84"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-08-14\n📝 Original message:On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 12:35 AM, Jorge Timón \u003cjtimon at jtimon.cc\u003e wrote:\n\u003e On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Venzen Khaosan \u003cvenzen at mail.bihthai.net\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e 4) General, undefined fear that something bad is going to happen when\n\u003e\u003e nodes choke up on a backlog of transactions.\n\u003e\u003e - - no specific symptoms are pointed at but presumably there is\n\u003e\u003e \"pre-traumatic stress\" at play.\n\u003e\u003e - - Bitcoin-based businesses are going to lose money, customers and\n\u003e\u003e potentially fail\n\u003e\u003e - - people will flee Bitcoin for another cryptocoin and Bitcoin will be\n\u003e\u003e left in the corner, collecting dust and memories of it will fade as\n\u003e\u003e SuperCoin with its big blocks becomes all things to all people.\n\u003e\n\u003e I believe thisbelongs in 2, not really sure if 2.1 or 2.2 since it's\n\u003e related to both.\n\nI was tempted to add it as a sub-sub-risk in both, since both things\nneed to be solved before that stop being a concern. But they may be\nmore things to do to solve that so I'm listing it as a separate\nsub-risk in 2:\n\n2.3) Big list of valid unconfirmed transactions\n\nresulting list:\n\n1) Potential indirect consequence of rising fees.\n\n1.1) Lowest fee transactions (currently free transactions) will become\nmore unreliable.\n1.2) People will migrate to competing systems (PoW altcoins) with lower fees.\n1.3) Layer 2 settlements become more expensive\n1.4) Less usage than we could have had with a bigger size\n1.4.1) More regulation pressure\n1.4.2) Not enough fees when subsidy is lower\n\n2) Software problem independent of a concrete block size that needs to\nbe solved anyway, often specific to Bitcoin Core (ie other\nimplementations, say libbitcoin may not necessarily share these\nproblems).\n\n2.1) Bitcoin Core's mempool is unbounded in size and can make the program\ncrash by using too much memory.\n\n2.2) There's no good way to increase the fee of a transaction that is\ntaking too long to be mined without the \"double spending\" transaction\nwith the higher fee being blocked by most nodes which follow Bitcoin\nCore's default policy for conflicting spends replacements (aka \"first\nseen\" replacement policy).\n\n2.3) Big list of valid unconfirmed transactions",
"sig": "ebd68db32c092ad03e23e606286c73a34c14c5c247baf18b2ed160ecb76d23b32fd7a92d8591df647a36090f3e386662a0ab762bed5f7161f056e5a1824696cc"
}