1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
|
Return-Path: <thomas@thomaszander.se>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B4C8267
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 10 Aug 2015 22:17:58 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from manxnetsf05.manx.net (outbound.manx.net [213.137.31.12])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6966A89
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 10 Aug 2015 22:17:57 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from adsl92.39.203.140.manx.net (EHLO coldstorage.localnet)
([92.39.203.140])
by manxnetsf05.manx.net (MOS 4.4.5a-GA FastPath queued)
with ESMTP id EGD55009; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 23:17:55 +0100 (BST)
From: Thomas Zander <thomas@thomaszander.se>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 00:09:14 +0200
Message-ID: <1472719.PaoH0O6gJe@coldstorage>
User-Agent: KMail/4.14.1 (Linux/3.16.0-4-amd64; KDE/4.14.2; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDqokER8=1PRW6u76BK4BgpDQZgbPw5_2HZztG1j6Mxg8A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABsx9T16fH+56isq95m4+QWsKwP==tf75ep8ghnEcBoV4OtZJA@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T2aZHe5382_fC7bEG2OFPadS3p0jjaAD8FW7p36XS7tcA@mail.gmail.com>
<CABm2gDqokER8=1PRW6u76BK4BgpDQZgbPw5_2HZztG1j6Mxg8A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Mirapoint-Received-SPF: 92.39.203.140 coldstorage.localnet
thomas@thomaszander.se 5 none
X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=manxnetsf05.manx.net
X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown,
refid=str=0001.0A0B0206.55C92313.00C3, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000,
reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0,
so=2014-07-29 09:23:55, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32,
mode=multiengine
X-Junkmail-IWF: false
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0),
refid=str=0001.0A0B0206.55C92313.00C3, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000,
reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0,
so=2014-07-29 09:23:55, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 1d0b4c36cb3b39a7afaf456daeb455b9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 22:17:58 -0000
On Monday 10. August 2015 16.55.40 Jorge Tim=F3n via bitcoin-dev wrote:=
> I'm not trying to be obstinate but I seriously can't see how they are=
> different.
> When you say unreliable I think you mean "unreliable for cheap fee
> transactions". Transactions with the highest fees will always confirm=
> reliably. For example, a 1 btc fee tx will probably always confirm ve=
ry
> reliably even if capacity never increases and demands increases a lot=
.
The actual fee is irrelevant, the amount of transactions is relevant.
Have you ever been to a concert that was far away from public transport=
? They=20
typically set up bus shuttles, or taxis to get people back into town=20=
afterwards.
The result there is always you end up waiting forever and it actually m=
ay be=20
easier to just walk instead of wait.
The amount you pay is irrelevant if everyone is paying it. There still =
is more=20
demand than there is capacity.
At the concert the amount of people will stop after some time, and you'=
d get=20
your bus. But in the scenarios created here the queues will never stop.=
So, no, its not unreliable for cheap free transactions.
Its unreliable for all types of transactions.
--=20
Thomas Zander
|
