1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
|
Return-Path: <thomas@thomaszander.se>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D166A49B
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 29 Jul 2015 13:29:30 +0200 (CEST)
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"
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 <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=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
|
