What you are saying here is completely factually inaccurate, the number of transactions does not increase hashing time. Furthermore you are assuming that miners are irrational and malicious which is flawed. If the miners collectively wanted to destroy the Bitcoin network they already could do that now. It is the underlying game theory and economics of Bitcoin that prevents this from happening in the first place.
Its the number of inputs that can lead to long verification times. I cited an example.
Furthermore you are assuming that miners are irrational and malicious which is flawed. If the miners collectively wanted to destroy the Bitcoin network they already could do that now. It is the underlying game theory and economics of Bitcoin that prevents this from happening in the first place.
I am not assuming miners are irrational or malicious either. First, we should prepare and secure ourselves for this possibility, but lets assume that a majority of the hashing power has and will continue to have the best of intentions for a moment. We can assume shortcuts for profit, mistakes, and ignorance from miners despite their intentions. Case in point -- SPV mining.
P.S... I really appreciate your efforts with Bitcoin Unlimited and hope that more developers test and review the code. Having multiple implementations is extremely valuable to our ecosystem.
Thank you, I appreciate your criticism. I am sorry if I came across a bit strong, I am to used to dealing with some of the trolls on this thread. Your observations are accurate, and we can assume shortcuts for profits and mistakes will be made despite the miners best intentions. I even suspect that some of these problems we will need to learn the hard way, the nice thing about Bitcoin Unlimited is that we could all decide on a two megabyte limit for instance and increase it again when required, allowing us more time to understand and further analyze its effects.