Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 58F3F411 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 00:46:40 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ig0-f181.google.com (mail-ig0-f181.google.com [209.85.213.181]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC4CE10A for ; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 00:46:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iggf3 with SMTP id f3so2665588igg.1 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:46:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=GcrARMUK5u8ULBzsfmOdUQXxevJMeDQ4vperu8H3tNk=; b=YCsE6xwBXZc4by0upWWo4KcTrT+YXJK8w39R/RT3+iaxTMjUtdxDB/+Ol+fYOviuPz 0LMOGYXeugDiaYm1DSkr2JNb0fpQoKBOl37iewmGwxbky+KMJJ6OjjLnt1iwB7tlzwBX uFl9uf2VBemeNdvEQ/VeLAw+ZLaxYzU7UnSAP2vWmvnU5CHegPWa0DrskPbxfzuD4/ws /fLcD2IoJco1TE3g/jxe7yHxg0kNuX6hSHodI+2WP6w4FaDPBls/XLp+fOSZSAxiJcQ3 E8frzF7hjaJX/lvvksI0tqi5dHDizYzNe0mZzBjhMu3WNm4nSySJaQyRHrvP4vFK41o7 uU5Q== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQldVpLSpVte4rS0aUBBjbsp2/codq5SL0S8BYCdREESm1q1VsgswWUYRtbVZqPXfsV11ztD X-Received: by 10.50.30.197 with SMTP id u5mr394084igh.9.1438130799390; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:46:39 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.158.140 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:46:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [173.228.107.141] In-Reply-To: References: <1B7F00D3-41AE-44BF-818D-EC4EF279DC11@gmail.com> From: Mark Friedenbach Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:46:20 -0700 Message-ID: To: Jean-Paul Kogelman Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bdc11be704fe5051bf8ebd9 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev 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 00:46:40 -0000 --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
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.

On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 5:43 PM, Jean-Paul Kogelman via bitco= in-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org><= /span> 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 se= e how things work. So far so good=E2=80=A6
>

The block size limit was put in place as an anti-DoS measure (monste= r blocks), not "anti-spam". It was never intended to have any eco= nomic 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/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--047d7bdc11be704fe5051bf8ebd9--