rich1.0npub1du3xh5wgds32a5fweqkd9k45kh30wl7kv2kyu8ugz9c2ztdg00tqqvyg93https://nostr.ae/npub1du3xh5wgds32a5fweqkd9k45kh30wl7kv2kyu8ugz9c2ztdg00tqqvyg93njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-08-12 📝 Original message:On Tuesday 11. August 2015 21.51.59 Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote: > If people are doing transactions despite being unreliable, there > must be a use for them. Thats one usage of the form unreliable. Yes, if people start getting their transactions thrown out because of full blocks or full memory pools, then its unreliable to send stuff. Much more importantly is the software is unreliable at such loads. Bitcoin core will continue to grow in memory consumption, and eventually crash. Or, worse, crash the system its running on. We know of some issues in the software with regards to running at > 100% capacity, I'm sure we'll find more when it actually happens. IT experts are serious when they say that they avoid maxing out a system like the plague. This, btw, is a good scenario where more centralization ends up happening when blocks are always full and people need to upgrade their client every week to keep up with the bugfixes.