Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposed alternatives to the 20MB step function

From: Mark Friedenbach <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 15:45:19 -0700

On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Aaron Voisine <[email-masked]> wrote:

> This is a clever way to tie block size to fees.
>
> I would just like to point out though that it still fundamentally is using
> hard block size limits to enforce scarcity. Transactions with below market
> fees will hang in limbo for days and fail, instead of failing immediately
> by not propagating, or seeing degraded, long confirmation times followed by
> eventual success.
>

There are already solutions to this which are waiting to be deployed as
default policy to bitcoind, and need to be implemented in other clients:
replace-by-fee and child-pays-for-parent.