{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-06-26\n📝 Original message:On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 08:18:07PM +0100, Ross Nicoll wrote:\n\u003e I'd argue that at the point where there's consistently more\n\u003e transactions than the network can handle, there are two significant\n\u003e risks. Firstly, that people don't care enough to pay the transaction\n\u003e fees required to get their transaction prioritised over another's,\n\u003e and secondly that as transactions start outright failing (which will\n\u003e happen with enough transactions backlogged) the network is\n\u003e considered unreliable, the currency illiquid, and there's a virtual\n\u003e \"bank rush\" to get into a more usable currency.\n\nThe supply and demand fee market means that there is a range of\nreliability levels depending on what fee you pay; regardless of how high\ndemand is if you pay a sufficiently high fee that outbids less\nimportant/lower fee transactions you'll get reliable transaction\nconfirmaiton.\n\nThe perceived lack of reliability is a function of the poor state of\nwallet software, not an inherent problem with the system. Fixing that\nsoftware is much easier and much less risky than any hard-fork ever will\nbe.\n\nFrom my article on transaction fees during the CoinWallet.eu flood:\n\nWhat needs to be done\n=====================\n\nTransaction fees aren't going away, blocksize increase or not. CoinWallet.eu is\nonly spending $5k flooding the network; even an 8MB blocksize increase can only\nraise the cost of that attack to $40k, which is still very affordable. For\ninstance an attacker looking to manipulate the Bitcoin price could probably\nafford to spend $40k doing it with the right trading strategy; let alone\ngovernments, banks, big businesses, criminal enterprises, etc. to whom $40k is\nchump-change. Wallets need to become smarter about fees, as does the rest of\nthe Bitcoin community.\n\nWhat we need to do:\n\n* Add fee/KB displays to block explorers.\n\n* Change wallets to calculate and set fees in fee/KB rather than fixed fees regardless of tx size.\n\n* Make websites with easy to understand displays of what the current mempool\n  backlog is, and what fee/KB is needed to get to the front of the queue. We've\n  done a great job for Bitcoin price charts, let's extend that to transaction\n  fees.\n\n* Add the ability to set any fee/KB to wallets, rather than be stuck with\n  predefined options that may not be high enough.\n\n* Add support for fee-bumping via (FSS)-RBF to wallets and Bitcoin Core.\n\nCapacity limits are just a fact of life in the design of the Bitcoin protocol,\nbut that doesn't mean we can't give users the tools to deal with them\nintelligently.\n\n-https://gist.github.com/petertodd/8e87c782bdf342ef18fb\n\n-- \n'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n0000000000000000007fc13ce02072d9cb2a6d51fae41fefcde7b3b283803d24\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 650 bytes\nDesc: Digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150626/60768123/attachment.sig\u003e"}