2017-11-30 19:03 GMT-02:00 Saunt Orolo <[email protected]>:
> > It is my understanding that there is a consensus among devs that it is > okay for some transactions never being confirmed, and the eventual pushing > of those users and economic activity out of Bitcoin is acceptable. > > > I disagree that there is this consensus, and above you are tying together > two different things. > > There is an infinite potential supply of transactions that can be > broadcast on the Bitcoin peer-to-peer network; necessarily some of these > will be chosen by miners and others discarded. The fee bid by the > broadcaster of the transaction is the incentive for its inclusion in a > block. This is and has been part of the Bitcoin design since day one. > > If there isn't a consensus that it is okay to fail to supply the demand for Bitcoin transactions, it can only be explained as a failure to see the logical connections between what you called "two differente things". The dynamics of Bitcoin economy changed completely when miners stopped to confirm transactions that they were willing to do, but couldn't due to protocol limitations. If every pending transaction in mempool today paid a fee every miner was willing to accept, many of them would still remain unconfirmed indefinitely. That was different with the demand of two years ago, where the only valid transactions not getting confirmed were the ones failing to meet the fee threshold the miner was willing to accept. -- Lucas Clemente Vella [email protected]
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-discuss
