Topic: Do you think BIP 106 would have solved the Mempool congestion due to BRC20? - page 2. (Read 324 times)
June 11, 2023, 03:51:40 PM
The proposal is quite interesting because of the aim to make the fix blocksize become dynamic depending on the previous transaction. If the implementation is perfect then I think it will solve the problem of BRC20 congesting the mempool but I believe the developer had some issues integrating BIP 106 to the network reason why it is not used. It is probably because of possible flaws that may happen and can affect the Bitcoin network even worse.
June 11, 2023, 02:16:47 PM
Because of the recent Mempool congestion due to BRC20 some discussions of past crossed my mind. Bitcoin Scalability Problem is not new. Block Size Limit Controversy was a byproduct of this. This gave us multiple BIPs (Bitcoin Improvement Proposal) by multiple experts. Below is a consolidated list of those all...
Out of all these, I have always voiced in favor of BIP 106 on BitcoinTalk. Second part of the proposal, i.e. Proposal 2 : Depending on previous block size calculation and previous Tx fee collected by miners, has always seemed most practical & effective to me.
Now, as almost 8 years have passed and the scaling issue is still daunting us, what do you think about this proposal?
- BIP 100 by Jeff Garzik, Tom Harding & Dagur Valberg Johannsson
- BIP 101 by Gavin Andresen
- BIP 102 by Jeff Garzik
- BIP 103 by Pieter Wuille
- BIP 104 by t.khan
- BIP 105 by BtcDrak
- BIP 106 by Upal Chakraborty
- BIP 107 by Washington Y. Sanchez
- BIP 109 by Gavin Andresen
Out of all these, I have always voiced in favor of BIP 106 on BitcoinTalk. Second part of the proposal, i.e. Proposal 2 : Depending on previous block size calculation and previous Tx fee collected by miners, has always seemed most practical & effective to me.
Now, as almost 8 years have passed and the scaling issue is still daunting us, what do you think about this proposal?
Jump to: