<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2013-12-01&#xA;📝 Original message:On Sun, Dec 01, 2013 at 07:18:07PM +0100, Mike Hearn wrote:&#xA;&gt; &gt; Bitcoin is and always will be limited in capacity - transactions may not&#xA;&gt; &gt; confirm in a reasonable about of time because of high-demand and/or DoS&#xA;&gt; &gt; attacks.&#xA;&gt; &#xA;&gt; I agree in the general case, but I was talking about the mobile wallet case specifically (i.e. people who are sending money between themselves or making small purchases of physical things). I think Bitcoin should be able to scale to handle these sorts of ordinary every-day transactions. Where I’d expect to see transactions falling off the edge is in more specialised cases like very small single micropayments, or “optional” internal transactions like mixing/re/defragmentation of wallets that don’t correspond to an actual payment. Those sorts of transactions would I guess be the first to go when faced with a sudden capacity crunch, but they wouldn’t show up in a mobile wallet UI anyway.&#xA;&#xA;Maybe, maybe not. We have no idea what fees will be because the system&#39;s&#xA;entire capacity is, and always will be, limited. That&#39;s just how&#xA;fundementally unscalable systems with huge global state work. What&#xA;demand will be for that limited capacity is unknown.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&gt; &gt; re: merchants paying tx fees, child-pays-for-parent is inefficient&#xA;&gt; &#xA;&gt; I know the existing code is, but is that fundamentally the case or just how the code has been written? I haven’t looked at this issue much but I know you’ve worked on it, so I’m curious to learn about why it’s inefficient and whether there are any fixes possible.&#x9;&#xA;&#xA;No, Luke&#39;s existing code uses good algorithms with O(n) scaling for n&#xA;transactions. The inefficiency is needing a second transaction, bloating&#xA;the blockchain and driving up fees.&#xA;&#xA;-- &#xA;&#39;peter&#39;[:-1]@petertodd.org&#xA;000000000000000f9102d27cfd61ea9e8bb324593593ca3ce6ba53153ff251b3&#xA;-------------- next part --------------&#xA;A non-text attachment was scrubbed...&#xA;Name: signature.asc&#xA;Type: application/pgp-signature&#xA;Size: 490 bytes&#xA;Desc: Digital signature&#xA;URL: &lt;http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20131201/b55f69e4/attachment.sig&gt;</html></oembed>