Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2013-03-07 📝 Original message:On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at ...
📅 Original date posted:2013-03-07
📝 Original message:On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 06:42:32PM +0100, Mike Hearn wrote:
> To summarize your post - it's another go at arguing for strongly
> limited block sizes, this time on the grounds that large blocks make
> it easier for $AUTHORITY to censor transactions? Is that right?
Yes.
Now, can we solve this problem robustly with clever technology, as is
done with UTXO fraud proofs? I can't see a way - can you?
Gavin asked me to do a projection for what block sizes could be based on
technology improving, and I think that analysis should consider
carefully to what degree the current system's quite strong censorship
resistance will be impacted.
It's interesting to be talking about censorship of transactions, right
as the support for implementing technical means to block SatoshiDice
transactions is highest. If anything, I think Gregory Maxwell's findings
he has posted on IRC showing roughly three quarters of transactions in
blocks are SatoshiDice related shows how the current large number of
validating nodes makes any effort at even discouraging unwanted traffic
quite difficult. In other words, it's a strong sign the censorship
resistance of Bitcoin works as intended.
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20130307/987793d7/attachment.sig>;
📝 Original message:On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 06:42:32PM +0100, Mike Hearn wrote:
> To summarize your post - it's another go at arguing for strongly
> limited block sizes, this time on the grounds that large blocks make
> it easier for $AUTHORITY to censor transactions? Is that right?
Yes.
Now, can we solve this problem robustly with clever technology, as is
done with UTXO fraud proofs? I can't see a way - can you?
Gavin asked me to do a projection for what block sizes could be based on
technology improving, and I think that analysis should consider
carefully to what degree the current system's quite strong censorship
resistance will be impacted.
It's interesting to be talking about censorship of transactions, right
as the support for implementing technical means to block SatoshiDice
transactions is highest. If anything, I think Gregory Maxwell's findings
he has posted on IRC showing roughly three quarters of transactions in
blocks are SatoshiDice related shows how the current large number of
validating nodes makes any effort at even discouraging unwanted traffic
quite difficult. In other words, it's a strong sign the censorship
resistance of Bitcoin works as intended.
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20130307/987793d7/attachment.sig>;