From: Thomas Zander <thomas@thomaszander.se>
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: <D25BD175-7099-4A6B-89BB-A35E94F555A9@gmail.com>
References: <1B7F00D3-41AE-44BF-818D-EC4EF279DC11@gmail.com>
	<CA+w+GKTfPXkVPaCC+3ZsQv=_DPMHoRwbigS40Testpyq4rZxsw@mail.gmail.com>
	<D25BD175-7099-4A6B-89BB-A35E94F555A9@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Why Satoshi's temporary anti-spam measure isn't
	temporary
Precedence: list

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