Thomas Zander [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: đź“… Original date posted:2015-07-29 đź“ť Original message:On Wednesday 29. July 2015 ...
đź“… Original date posted:2015-07-29
đź“ť Original message:On Wednesday 29. July 2015 03.43.50 Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > > Enter a “temporary” anti-spam measure - a one megabyte block size limit.
> > The one megabyte limit was nothing to do with anti spam. It was a quick
> > kludge to try and avoid the user experience degrading significantly in
> > the event of a "DoS block", back when everyone used Bitcoin-Qt. The fear
> > was that some malicious miner would generate massive blocks and make the
> > wallet too painful to use, before there were any alternatives.
> I thought I clarified this in an earlier post - I meant DoS. Please don’t
> digress on such stupid technicalities.
This particular technicality is rather important since it removes the basis of
your argument.
More specifically, your 4 points of what you claim Satoshi expected to happen,
but didn't were in actual fact not planned, wanted or predicted by Satoshi.
So, you can do name calling if you want, but maybe thats not very productive.
> > The plan was to remove it once SPV wallets were widespread. But Satoshi
> > left before that happened.
> >
>
> Guess what? SPV wallets are still not particularly widespread…
This is an odd statement, we keep on hearing about low bitcoin-core node count
and since that is the only alternative, your statement can only be interpreted
as saying there really are not a whole lot of users out there..
Is that really what you mean?
> and those that
> are out there are notoriously terrible at detecting network forks and
> making sure they are on the right one.
What is the point you are trying to make with that? It seems completely
irrelevant to the point of this thread...
--
Thomas Zander
đź“ť Original message:On Wednesday 29. July 2015 03.43.50 Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > > Enter a “temporary” anti-spam measure - a one megabyte block size limit.
> > The one megabyte limit was nothing to do with anti spam. It was a quick
> > kludge to try and avoid the user experience degrading significantly in
> > the event of a "DoS block", back when everyone used Bitcoin-Qt. The fear
> > was that some malicious miner would generate massive blocks and make the
> > wallet too painful to use, before there were any alternatives.
> I thought I clarified this in an earlier post - I meant DoS. Please don’t
> digress on such stupid technicalities.
This particular technicality is rather important since it removes the basis of
your argument.
More specifically, your 4 points of what you claim Satoshi expected to happen,
but didn't were in actual fact not planned, wanted or predicted by Satoshi.
So, you can do name calling if you want, but maybe thats not very productive.
> > The plan was to remove it once SPV wallets were widespread. But Satoshi
> > left before that happened.
> >
>
> Guess what? SPV wallets are still not particularly widespread…
This is an odd statement, we keep on hearing about low bitcoin-core node count
and since that is the only alternative, your statement can only be interpreted
as saying there really are not a whole lot of users out there..
Is that really what you mean?
> and those that
> are out there are notoriously terrible at detecting network forks and
> making sure they are on the right one.
What is the point you are trying to make with that? It seems completely
irrelevant to the point of this thread...
--
Thomas Zander