You make good points about high network fees being disruptive. 

What is more disruptive are spikes & valleys (instability) that last
longer than the mempool cycle can handle. 

Right now, indicates that there are about 105,000
unconfirmed transactions and that current memory usage is 795 mb of 300

We could compare the bitcoin networks' ability to process transactions
to the California Independent System Operator's (CAISO - task of ensuring the CA
electrical grid stays supplied with the least expensive electricity
available and does not get overloaded, nor has to export too much
electrical power to other grids in times of surplus. 

A big part of doing that is noticing past trends and preparing for
future growth, if that is the goal. 

Expanding the block size is the simplest way to expand network capacity
and lower transactional costs. 

Thank you, 


On 2023-05-08 09:37, Melvin Carvalho via bitcoin-dev wrote:

> po 8. 5. 2023 v 13:55 odesílatel Ali Sherief via bitcoin-dev 
> <> napsal: 
>> Hi guys, 
>> I think everyone on this list knows what has happened to the Bitcoin mempool 
>> during the past 96 hours. Due to side projects such as BRC-20 having such a 
>> high volume, real bitcoin transactions are being priced out and that is what 
>> is causing the massive congestion that has arguable not been seen since 
>> December 2017. I do not count the March 2021 congestion because that was 
>> only with 1-5sat/vbyte. 
>> Such justifiably worthless ("worthless" is not even my word - that's how its 
>> creator described them[1]) tokens threaten the smooth and normal use of the 
>> Bitcoin network as a peer-to-pear digital currency, as it was intended to be 
>> used as. 
>> If the volume does not die down over the next few weeks, should we take an 
>> action? The bitcoin network is a triumvirate of developers, miners, and 
>> users. Considering that miners are largely the entities at fault for 
>> allowing the system to be abused like this, the harmony of Bitcoin 
>> transactions is being disrupted right now. Although this community has a 
>> strong history of not putting its fingers into pies unless absolutely 
>> necessary - an example being during the block size wars and Segwit - should 
>> similar action be taken now, in the form of i) BIPs and/or ii) commits into 
>> the Bitcoin Core codebase, to curtail the loophole in BIP 342 (which defines 
>> the validation rules for Taproot scripts) which has allowed these unintended 
>> consequences? 
>> An alternative would be to enforce this "censorship" at the node level and 
>> introduce a run-time option to instantly prune all non-standard Taproot 
>> transactions. This will be easier to implement, but won't hit the road until 
>> minimum next release. 
>> I know that some people will have their criticisms about this, 
>> absolutists/libertarians/maximum-freedom advocates, which is fine, but we 
>> need to find a solution for this that fits everyone's common ground. We 
>> indirectly allowed this to happen, which previously wasn't possible before. 
>> So we also have a responsibility to do something to ensure that this kind of 
>> congestion can never happen again using Taproot.
> This is a nuanced and sensitive topic that has been discussed previously, as 
> far back as 2010, in a conversation between Gavin and Satoshi: 
> Gavin: That's a cool feature until it gets popular and somebody decides it 
> would be fun to flood the payment network with millions of transactions to 
> transfer the latest Lady Gaga video to all their friends...
> Satoshi: That's one of the reasons for transaction fees.  There are other 
> things we can do if necessary. 
> High fees could be viewed as disruptive to the network, but less disruptive 
> than regular large reorgs, or a network split. 
> It might be beneficial to brainstorm the "other things we can do if 
> necessary". 
> A simple observation is that increasing the block size could make it more 
> challenging to spam, though it may come at the expense of some 
> decentralization. 
>> -Ali 
>> --- 
>> [1]: 
>>  [1] 
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list

bitcoin-dev mailing list

Reply via email to