{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-08-12\n📝 Original message:On Aug 12, 2015 10:11 AM, \"Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev\" \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e On Tuesday 11. August 2015 21.51.59 Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e \u003e  If people are doing transactions despite being unreliable, there\n\u003e \u003e must be a use for them.\n\u003e\n\u003e Thats one usage of the form unreliable.\n\u003e Yes, if people start getting their transactions thrown out because of full\n\u003e blocks or full memory pools, then its unreliable to send stuff.\n\u003e\n\u003e Much more importantly is the software is unreliable at such loads. Bitcoin\n\u003e core will continue to grow in memory consumption, and eventually crash.\nOr,\n\u003e worse, crash the system its running on.\n\u003e We know of some issues in the software with regards to running at \u003e 100%\n\u003e capacity, I'm sure we'll find more when it actually happens.\n\nDon't fear this happening at 1 MB, fear this happening at any size. This\nneeds to be solved regardless of the block size.\nDon't worry, the \"doing nothing side\" is already taking care of this. I\nwill give the link for the second time...\n\nhttps://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6470\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150812/bc8295bc/attachment.html\u003e"}