On Aug 12, 2015 10:11 AM, "Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Tuesday 11. August 2015 21.51.59 Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > If people are doing transactions despite being unreliable, there
> > must be a use for them.
>
> Thats one usage of the form unreliable.
> Yes, if people start getting their transactions thrown out because of full
> blocks or full memory pools, then its unreliable to send stuff.
>
> Much more importantly is the software is unreliable at such loads. Bitcoin
> core will continue to grow in memory consumption, and eventually crash. Or,
> worse, crash the system its running on.
> We know of some issues in the software with regards to running at > 100%
> capacity, I'm sure we'll find more when it actually happens.
Don't fear this happening at 1 MB, fear this happening at any size. This needs to be solved regardless of the block size.
Don't worry, the "doing nothing side" is already taking care of this. I will give the link for the second time...