Quote from: piotr_n on March 12, 2013, 05:28:22 PM

Quote from: tvbcof on March 12, 2013, 05:23:35 PM

So the solution is to continue to increase the block size as demand provokes this issue then?

I guess.. because what else? Are you going to appeal to people to do less transactions, hoping that it would solve the problem?

I don't believe you can i.e. convince satoshidice to drop down their lucrative business, just because other ppl's transactions are getting queued...
Why should they care anyway, if they pay the same fees as you do?
Since we don't have other solution at hand, scaling up the storage limits seems to be the only option ATM.
Unless we're OK with increasing the fees?

I'm totally OK with increasing fees. I thought that was, by design, the way to modulate load.

If Mike is saying something like "yes, that's the way we modulate load, and yes, transactions that didn't make the cut are eventually purged, but BDB was not up to the task of processing under the currently configured garbage regime" then I'm totally down with that and feel that switching to LevelDB is an appropriate response. But I'm not sure that is what he is saying which is why I asked.

I'm also saying that to me, working on the 'garbage collection' mechanism and/or tuning strikes me as a high priority line of development, and this seems like an opportune time to do it. As always, as a user I hope for the highest degree of transparency as things progress.