Can we now charge blockstreamcore for the next MTGOX case because tx not done?

[hv_]

Case is clear

You buy a bunch of btc on an exchange but are not able to transfer to some safe wallet because of the 1MB limit and full blocks, despite you payed some 'reasonable' fee.
In the meantime the exchange gets goxed and it's gone.

So who is really responsible for that case and might get sued?

Sure you can start argue you know this new limitation and risk beforehand, but huuuu....

[alani123]

Can you sue a bank for having bank holiday before capital controls come in place? I don't think so. Core devs are not a bank of course but this argument is stupid so I'm giving you a stupid analogy. OP almost sounds like a troll.

[Carlton Banks]

Get filing.

Prediction: you will fail to prove that your own shortcomings choosing a reputable exchange platform is somehow someone else's responsibility; Bitcoin is about personal responsibility, not running to daddy when you can't get your own way

[hv_]

Can you sue a bank for having bank holiday before capital controls come in place? I don't think so. Core devs are not a bank of course but this argument is stupid so I'm giving you a stupid analogy. OP almost sounds like a troll.

Correct analogy would be sue a bank for not executing your tx and next day go bankrupt so that your money is lost.

Hope you do not troll me?

[hv_]

Get filing.

Prediction: you will fail to prove that your own shortcomings choosing a reputable exchange platform is somehow someone else's responsibility; Bitcoin is about personal responsibility, not running to daddy when you can't get your own way

Thanks Banks, your predictions are always apreciated!
At least you do not say its completely impossible and only few insulting, good start.

[yayayo]

I don't see a problem. These spam transaction won't be included into blocks, because of insufficient fees paid. I had no problems getting my recent transactions included into a block in less than 30 minutes, paying the recommended standard fees. All the whining leads nowhere, so please act like an adult.

The current spam attack is a desperate yet futile attempt of the big-block cultists to be relevant. However as the current stability of the network and progress by the Core development team have clearly shown, despite the doomsday scenarios Bitcoin is going stronger than ever. There is no meaningful support for the outright dangerous and technologically inept HearndresenCoin-scheme.

I'm confident that Bitcoin together with lightning network will both providing a securely decentralized network and high scalability even for microtransactions.

ya.ya.yo!

[ArticMine]

Case is clear

You buy a bunch of btc on an exchange but are not able to transfer to some safe wallet because of the 1MB limit and full blocks, despite you payed some 'reasonable' fee.
In the meantime the exchange gets goxed and it's gone.

So who is really responsible for that case and might get sued?

Sure you can start argue you know this new limitation and risk beforehand, but huuuu....

I doubt it. The 1 MB blocksize limit is part of the Bitcoin protocol. Of course one can, instead of suing anyone, buy a crypto currency that does not have a fixed blocksize hard coded into the protocol, thereby avoiding the whole issue.

Edit: This sounds to me like buying a large amount of gold and then trying to ship it, only to find it is too heavy. Then suing whomever smelted the gold.

[alani123]

Can you sue a bank for having bank holiday before capital controls come in place? I don't think so. Core devs are not a bank of course but this argument is stupid so I'm giving you a stupid analogy. OP almost sounds like a troll.

Correct analogy would be sue a bank for not executing your tx and next day go bankrupt so that your money is lost.

Hope you do not troll me?

Then in your case the right answer would be that it's not the developer's fault. It was your choice to use that exchange, and as long as no transaction left the wallet it was the fault of the exchanges wallet that you didn't get your coins. The most likely scenarion though is that there would be a transaction leaving the wallet, just not a transaction with high priority due to faulty fees.

[AgentofCoin]

Can you sue a bank for having bank holiday before capital controls come in place? I don't think so. Core devs are not a bank of course but this argument is stupid so I'm giving you a stupid analogy. OP almost sounds like a troll.

Correct analogy would be sue a bank for not executing your tx and next day go bankrupt so that your money is lost.

Hope you do not troll me?

Then in your case the right answer would be that it's not the developer's fault. It was your choice to use that exchange, and as long as no transaction left the wallet it was the fault of the exchanges wallet that you didn't get your coins. The most likely scenarion though is that there would be a transaction leaving the wallet, just not a transaction with high priority due to faulty fees.

Legally, this answer above is most correct.

If the exchange sent a tx to your non-exchange wallet, and due to an insufficient fee it does not get included in any block,
the tx will be returned to the exchange wallet. In the mean time, if the exchange went bankrupt and shutdown, it would be
the exchange that would have your money and you would have to file with the bankruptcy court.

The argument that the Devs would be legally responsible for such a situation would be an incorrect legal theory.

It is important to remember that Bitcoin is still an experiment in many different fields, and as such, is still
considered a "use at your own risk" by governments and the courts. The Courts would advise that you file
any such action against the exchange, just as you would against a bank.

[pedrog]

Core developers do not have any responsibility in this case, there were/are options to increase the block size people didn't adopt them, people chose the 1MB limit, bitcoin has the same transaction capacity since ever, you can't blame it for being what it always was...

[hv_]

Core developers do not have any responsibility in this case, there were/are options to increase the block size people didn't adopt them, people chose the 1MB limit, bitcoin has the same transaction capacity since ever, you can't blame it for being what it always was...

I did not say just core.

The act would be first against the Exchange, and it would depend on their law and contracts.

But since the Exchange might be bankrupt you would look for next Company with assets (or they do for you), which might be responsible for e.g. causing 'correct fees' beeing now fully unstable compared to all the years ago, when you signed up.

That might be the reason why Coinbase / GDAX wants that 2MB to be done quickly.