{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1kpxa282a99fc93xx30ru3sfmqnyqk3r8aurz3znzxyslhd7felfsg7e3fd","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1kpxa282a99fc93xx30ru3sfmqnyqk3r8aurz3znzxyslhd7felfsg7e3fd","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-08-13\n📝 Original message:3) A few more people begin using bitcoin. Bitcoin buckles and dies.\n\n- Something happens a few months from now causing an influx of new users\nand more transactions.\n- Blocks are constantly full.\n- A backlog of transactions keeps growing indefinitely.\n- At first people say \"bitcoin is slow\". After a while they say \"bitcoin\ndoesn't work\".\n- Changing the hard limit on block size requires a fork and takes too long.\n- As bitcoin no longer works people stop using it.\n- Bitcoin lives out the last of its days in the backwaters of the\ninternet with only 5 users. They keep telling people \"we increased the\nblock size now\". Unfortunately noone is listening anymore.\n- People laugh at you and say \"I told you that buttcoin thing was doomed\nto fail. After all it wasn't real money.\"\n\nIf the hard limit had been increased earlier then mining pools would\nhave been able to react quickly by upping their own soft limit. But this\nwas not the case and so ended Bitcoin.\n\nSo in summary:\n\nBy increasing the block size limit you run the risk of:\n- The transaction fee market takes a little longer to develop.\nBy not increasing the limit you run the risk of:\n- Bitcoin dies. The end.\n\nTransaction fees should not be the main topic of this discussion, and\nprobably not even a part of it at all. That seems outright irresponsible\nto me.\n\nRegards,\nGeir H. Hansen, Bitminter mining pool\n\nOn 12.08.2015 11:59, Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e I believe all concerns I've read can be classified in the following groups:\n\u003e \n\u003e\u003e 1) Potential indirect consequence of rising fees.\n\u003e \n\u003e - Lowest fee transactions (currently free transactions) will become\n\u003e more unreliable.\n\u003e - People will migrate to competing systems (PoW altcoins) with lower fees.\n\u003e \n\u003e\u003e 2) Software problem independent of a concrete block size that needs to\n\u003e\u003e be solved anyway, often specific to Bitcoin Core (ie other\n\u003e\u003e implementations, say libbitcoin may not necessarily share these\n\u003e\u003e problems).\n\u003e \n\u003e - Bitcoin Core's mempool is unbounded in size and can make the program\n\u003e crash by using too much memory.\n\u003e - There's no good way to increase the fee of a transaction that is\n\u003e taking too long to be mined without the \"double spending\" transaction\n\u003e with the higher fee being blocked by most nodes which follow Bitcoin\n\u003e Core's default policy for conflicting spends replacements (aka \"first\n\u003e seen\" replacement policy).\n\u003e \n\u003e I have started with the 3 concerns that I read more often, but please\n\u003e suggest more concerns for these categories and suggest other\n\u003e categories if you think there's more.\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e"}