MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <D2CDA490-F04A-41EA-85F7-56BA5B052729@me.com>
References: <1B7F00D3-41AE-44BF-818D-EC4EF279DC11@gmail.com>
	<D2CDA490-F04A-41EA-85F7-56BA5B052729@me.com>
From: Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:46:20 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOG=w-sanb-vOt6YaDJhdT2CCmnqWYTBF204sBZ1=Dsveko7og@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jean-Paul Kogelman <jeanpaulkogelman@me.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bdc11be704fe5051bf8ebd9
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Why Satoshi's temporary anti-spam measure isn't
	temporary
Precedence: list

--047d7bdc11be704fe5051bf8ebd9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Does it matter even in the slightest why the block size limit was put in
place? It does not. Bitcoin is a decentralized payment network, and the
relationship between utility (block size) and decentralization is
empirical. Why the 1MB limit was put in place at the time might be a
historically interesting question, but it bears little relevance to the
present engineering issues.

On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 5:43 PM, Jean-Paul Kogelman via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

>
> > Enter a =E2=80=9Ctemporary=E2=80=9D anti-spam measure - a one megabyte =
block size limit.
> Let=E2=80=99s test this out, then increase it once we see how things work=
. So far
> so good=E2=80=A6
> >
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

--047d7bdc11be704fe5051bf8ebd9
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Does it matter even in the slightest why the block size li=
mit was put in place? It does not. Bitcoin is a decentralized payment netwo=
rk, and the relationship between utility (block size) and decentralization =
is empirical. Why the 1MB limit was put in place at the time might be a his=
torically interesting question, but it bears little relevance to the presen=
t engineering issues.<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D=
"gmail_quote">On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 5:43 PM, Jean-Paul Kogelman via bitco=
in-dev <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfound=
ation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;<=
/span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8=
ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D""><br>
&gt; Enter a =E2=80=9Ctemporary=E2=80=9D anti-spam measure - a one megabyte=
 block size limit. Let=E2=80=99s test this out, then increase it once we se=
e how things work. So far so good=E2=80=A6<br>
&gt;<br>
<br>
</span>The block size limit was put in place as an anti-DoS measure (monste=
r blocks), not &quot;anti-spam&quot;. It was never intended to have any eco=
nomic effect, not on spam and not on any future fee market.<br>
<br>
<br>
jp<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>

--047d7bdc11be704fe5051bf8ebd9--