Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C3FA586 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 23:12:09 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ob0-f178.google.com (mail-ob0-f178.google.com [209.85.214.178]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B5A011C for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 23:12:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: by obbfr1 with SMTP id fr1so72879053obb.1 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 16:12:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=oUFrB6nEPee/Yk78KmroDrYKz9JB5+znQrxK6JpHXCE=; b=gVZo0Use+mbtfDQEIbBvypSmQBw9tac8/FY8WYBedPU/kM3y84Sn7wWSlZY+o9i50G vTm5R56nkofl4/PaWPSMB9GdCIgbfgGFgKha0I60QKBPo38VQm7vym11mclUxvNOntM4 miIWp/zDkSBEFBNWGiRJ7rnQk0cAvxxy84i7YNYf3ZPV7ITtvX0XIjSJPIA+tDQwk7pW G2MRKFCmOlZwPe04qm6eTIkTmmp9Xa0VaNAXEWowuXvm7hxdcE7hxY2qiPe80j/a6DjS yWgrrmY/q9kl+w/hnXyDUSMc7bbFmhaEM4sQzCjshm/8CJOPtSXa9Vzc11jceKk0P66K KlwA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkDgU0PD06vK3Hrvp95K7/6Mw7SWoErhN0lLK/FeVJEP9n68vIZnPlK1Hm03jd6erqYmvAn MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.85.106 with SMTP id g10mr10475251oez.53.1439593928614; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 16:12:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.202.71.85 with HTTP; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 16:12:08 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <55CB2C57.1070307@mail.bihthai.net> Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 01:12:08 +0200 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= To: venzen@mail.bihthai.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A summary list of all concerns related to not rising the block size X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 23:12:09 -0000 On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 12:35 AM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n wrote= : > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Venzen Khaosan = wrote: >> 4) General, undefined fear that something bad is going to happen when >> nodes choke up on a backlog of transactions. >> - - no specific symptoms are pointed at but presumably there is >> "pre-traumatic stress" at play. >> - - Bitcoin-based businesses are going to lose money, customers and >> potentially fail >> - - people will flee Bitcoin for another cryptocoin and Bitcoin will be >> left in the corner, collecting dust and memories of it will fade as >> SuperCoin with its big blocks becomes all things to all people. > > I believe thisbelongs in 2, not really sure if 2.1 or 2.2 since it's > related to both. I was tempted to add it as a sub-sub-risk in both, since both things need to be solved before that stop being a concern. But they may be more things to do to solve that so I'm listing it as a separate sub-risk in 2: 2.3) Big list of valid unconfirmed transactions resulting list: 1) Potential indirect consequence of rising fees. 1.1) Lowest fee transactions (currently free transactions) will become more unreliable. 1.2) People will migrate to competing systems (PoW altcoins) with lower fee= s. 1.3) Layer 2 settlements become more expensive 1.4) Less usage than we could have had with a bigger size 1.4.1) More regulation pressure 1.4.2) Not enough fees when subsidy is lower 2) Software problem independent of a concrete block size that needs to be solved anyway, often specific to Bitcoin Core (ie other implementations, say libbitcoin may not necessarily share these problems). 2.1) Bitcoin Core's mempool is unbounded in size and can make the program crash by using too much memory. 2.2) There's no good way to increase the fee of a transaction that is taking too long to be mined without the "double spending" transaction with the higher fee being blocked by most nodes which follow Bitcoin Core's default policy for conflicting spends replacements (aka "first seen" replacement policy). 2.3) Big list of valid unconfirmed transactions