rich1.0npub12hzwfhx9ptjf2f0va8qllc0h4tcvz5aaefvlvn9uq8z2ssrq027qtvtmxahttps://nostr.ae/npub12hzwfhx9ptjf2f0va8qllc0h4tcvz5aaefvlvn9uq8z2ssrq027qtvtmxanjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-06-19 📝 Original message:On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 4:37 AM, Mike Hearn <mike at plan99.net> wrote: > Or alternatively, fix the reasons why users would have negative >> experiences with full blocks >> > > It's impossible, Mark. *By definition* if Bitcoin does not have > sufficient capacity for everyone's transactions, some users who were using > it will be kicked out to make way for the others. Whether that happens in > some kind of stable organised way or (as with the current code) a fairly > chaotic way doesn't change the fundamental truth: *some users will find > their bitcoin savings have become uneconomic to spend*. > > Here's a recent user complaint that provides a preview of coming > attractions: > > > https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/39r3bi/breadwallet_asking_me_to_pay_over_10_network_fee/ > > Hello, I'm just trying to send my small Sarutobi-tips stash (12,159 bits) >> onto a paper wallet. When I try to send it, a window pops up stating >> "insufficient funds for bitcoin network fee, reduce payment amount by 1,389 >> bits?" This would be a fee of $0.32 to send my $2.82, leaving me with $2.50. > > > Has there been any talk about reducing the time between blocks? If blocks were allowed to come twice as fast, they would be able to clear pending transactions in the mempool the same as if the block size doubled, but would allow mining to stay more decentralized since miners wouldn't be working on such large-scale blocks? It would still take more storage space to store the blockchain, though. Brooks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150619/6f2397c3/attachment.html>