You know you’ve reached a new level when you can no longer find any humor in Morris’ Three Golden Rules of Computer… https://t.co/sVrl9KcQYm
@MAbtc @bitedgeco I think we agree on that point; I basically said as much with https://t.co/gcsD7M42YZ
@MAbtc @bitedgeco Refer to my tweetstorm from earlier today for more of my thinking about transaction backlogs. https://t.co/PNDMiZGSdn
@MAbtc @bitedgeco As I noted (I am “statoshi”) on that thread, such an increase can easily be due to organic growth. It’s not proof of spam.
@fredzannarbor You mean in relation to the value sent by the transaction? Doesn’t make much sense either since that’s not how market works.
@SDLerner True, true, though when discussing the fee market and comparing tx fees to their confirmation times, fee rates are a good standard
@ErikVoorhees I have yet to figure out how to open a bank account in India.
The only sane way to describe bitcoin transaction fees is in cost per byte of data. If you just state the total cost, it’s nonsensical.
@paul_btc @JVWVU1 Some companies would prefer on-chain transactions because then the users can verify balances on their own.
6) Reminder: https://t.co/3HzJ2Obl2V
5) As such, I’d bet that some backlogs are not attacks, but rather people firing up new services & learning the hard way.
4) I tell these companies to use on-chain transactions for entering and exiting their service; the rest should be internal DB updates.
3) I’ve had to tell a number of companies over the years to re-architect or scrap their plans so that they don’t make too many transactions.
2) Some companies getting into Bitcoin don’t comprehend the scarcity of block space and want the blockchain to do all their accounting.
1) It would only take one moderately sized company to start regularly sending BTC to users in order to create a large transaction backlog.