rich1.0npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8https://nostr.ae/npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-08-12 📝 Original message:On Aug 12, 2015 10:11 AM, "Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev" < bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > 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. Don't fear this happening at 1 MB, fear this happening at any size. This needs to be solved regardless of the block size. Don't worry, the "doing nothing side" is already taking care of this. I will give the link for the second time... https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6470 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150812/bc8295bc/attachment.html>