Eric Lombrozo [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: đź“… Original date posted:2015-07-28 đź“ť Original message:> On Jul 28, 2015, at 5:43 ...
đź“… Original date posted:2015-07-28
đź“ť Original message:> On Jul 28, 2015, at 5:43 PM, Jean-Paul Kogelman <jeanpaulkogelman at me.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Enter a “temporary” anti-spam measure - a one megabyte block size limit. Let’s test this out, then increase it once we see how things work. So far so good…
>>
>
> The block size limit was put in place as an anti-DoS measure (monster blocks), not "anti-spam". It was never intended to have any economic effect, not on spam and not on any future fee market.
>
>
> jp
>
I’m using spam and DoS somewhat synonymously here, although you’re correct - DoS is a more accurate term.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150728/da5402c9/attachment.sig>;
đź“ť Original message:> On Jul 28, 2015, at 5:43 PM, Jean-Paul Kogelman <jeanpaulkogelman at me.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Enter a “temporary” anti-spam measure - a one megabyte block size limit. Let’s test this out, then increase it once we see how things work. So far so good…
>>
>
> The block size limit was put in place as an anti-DoS measure (monster blocks), not "anti-spam". It was never intended to have any economic effect, not on spam and not on any future fee market.
>
>
> jp
>
I’m using spam and DoS somewhat synonymously here, although you’re correct - DoS is a more accurate term.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150728/da5402c9/attachment.sig>;