From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D166A49B for ; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:29:32 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from pmx.vmail.no (pmx.vmail.no [193.75.16.11]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59D79FA for ; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:29:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pmx.vmail.no (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (pmx.isp.as2116.net) with SMTP id 6B9EF21E31 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 13:29:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp.bluecom.no (smtp.bluecom.no [193.75.75.28]) by pmx.vmail.no (pmx.isp.as2116.net) with ESMTP id 2D08B21E27 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 13:29:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from coldstorage.localnet (unknown [81.191.185.32]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.bluecom.no (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E282CD4 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 13:29:30 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Zander To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 13:29:30 +0200 Message-ID: <10819720.abeZStHP4e@coldstorage> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.1 (Linux/3.16.0-4-amd64; KDE/4.14.2; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <1B7F00D3-41AE-44BF-818D-EC4EF279DC11@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Why Satoshi's temporary anti-spam measure isn't temporary X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:29:32 -0000 On Wednesday 29. July 2015 03.43.50 Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev wrote= : > > > Enter a =E2=80=9Ctemporary=E2=80=9D anti-spam measure - a one meg= abyte block size limit. > > The one megabyte limit was nothing to do with anti spam. It was a q= uick > > 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 mak= e the > > wallet too painful to use, before there were any alternatives. > I thought I clarified this in an earlier post - I meant DoS. Please d= on=E2=80=99t > digress on such stupid technicalities. This particular technicality is rather important since it removes the b= asis of=20 your argument. More specifically, your 4 points of what you claim Satoshi expected to = happen,=20 but didn't were in actual fact not planned, wanted or predicted by Sato= shi. So, you can do name calling if you want, but maybe thats not very produ= ctive. > > The plan was to remove it once SPV wallets were widespread. But Sat= oshi > > left before that happened. > >=20 >=20 > Guess what? SPV wallets are still not particularly widespread=E2=80=A6= This is an odd statement, we keep on hearing about low bitcoin-core nod= e count=20 and since that is the only alternative, your statement can only be inte= rpreted=20 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 completel= y=20 irrelevant to the point of this thread... --=20 Thomas Zander