Quote from: brg444 on August 12, 2015, 04:25:38 PM

Quote from: sgbett on August 12, 2015, 03:58:50 PM

Quote from: brg444 on August 12, 2015, 03:32:45 PM

Quote from: sgbett on August 12, 2015, 03:29:24 PM

Quote from: brg444 on August 12, 2015, 02:49:23 PM

Quote from: sgbett on August 12, 2015, 02:41:26 PM

Quote from: brg444 on August 12, 2015, 02:36:58 PM

Quote from: sgbett on August 12, 2015, 02:20:11 PM

All transactions are equal, but some are more equal than others

I guess that's where we disagree.

I know, Napoleon.

So are you suggesting I shouldn't be allowed to pay more fees to get priority?

No.

Now answer my question: are you suggesting raising the block size limit prevents that phenomenon?

No... but I honestly fail to see the point you're trying to make.

Why then the argument that "all transactions are equal"?

It's not *my* point it's Piscitello's

Quote

Mempools can be bounded, such that only the top priority transactions are stored. Low priority transactions are passed on or rejected once the limit is reached or are replaced by higher priority transactions. This prevents nodes from crashing due to being overwhelmed by transactions.

He is suggesting explicitly rejecting valid transactions because they don't pay enough fees as a way to solve the issue of the mempool ballooning if the block size is not large enough. Assuming that what will happen is that people will just pay higher fees to get in the block.

The protocol defines a valid transaction, and if a transaction is valid it accept it into the mem-pool => All transactions are equal
Piscitello defines 'priority' (a more palatable name for 'fee size') and says we let things back up and reject low fee transactions => Some transactions are more equal than others

Nodes will not be overwhelmed by transactions because they aren't economically viable to include in a block, they will be overwhelmed by transactions because the block size limit prevents them from including those transactions.

Let me draw you a picture of a theoretical scenario of not allowing a f(r)ee market to develop:

I understand your point. But it seems to me that anyone who supports this position effectively suggests that the block size limit should be lifted altogether (at least that's the stance of PeterR & a couple others). Otherwise all you're really doing is moving your quota line to the right.

Assuming we increase the limit to 8mb. Do you propose that the additional supply will NOT get filled relatively quickly and if it does what step is next, increasing the limit again?

I don't know, but you are saying we shouldn't do anything, because doing something might not be quite enough?