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
|
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 E06DC83D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 14 Aug 2015 14:48:55 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: delayed 01:00:01 by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from erato-smout.broadpark.no (erato-smout.broadpark.no
[80.202.10.26])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44B43E2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 14 Aug 2015 14:48:55 +0000 (UTC)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Received: from osl1cloudm2.nextgentel.net ([80.202.10.59])
by erato-smout.broadpark.no
(Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-27.01(7.0.4.27.0) 64bit
(built Aug
30 2012)) with ESMTP id <0NT200L1CR6MBU70@erato-smout.broadpark.no> for
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org;
Fri, 14 Aug 2015 15:48:53 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from coldstorage.localnet ([89.10.234.83])
by cmsmtp with SMTP id QFLnZa2niXlyWQFLoZvgyE;
Fri, 14 Aug 2015 15:48:52 +0200
X-Original-Source-IP: 89.10.234.83
From: Thomas Zander <thomas@thomaszander.se>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 15:48:51 +0200
Message-id: <1832593.Ok8MIJxeIG@coldstorage>
User-Agent: KMail/4.14.1 (Linux/3.16.0-4-amd64; KDE/4.14.2; x86_64; ; )
In-reply-to: <55CD51D9.50103@mail.bihthai.net>
References: <CABm2gDrfB+c1QTZippYYNX-uhcd9NYUcR-VHug6FYtPmSoz4Bw@mail.gmail.com>
<55CD13AB.2050604@bitminter.com> <55CD51D9.50103@mail.bihthai.net>
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfKi2ljzJBlTIJoRpiv3GGwcL6yFIa9CMCnUbbNZyOrfWh8sVlHFVUD/dqOMLWGMYpty0h5tXp5Nr3Ey4UKgMob/ASf5tM1bc4LH4VVgyuf0PGef+M6cLYRczuWxXBDGpIuKDdOdGGoYd2pVHHYBBLSZ+urLarknkLocaNedhA9Va/kebaQSowGLDF/q1Cy9bMA3ukpc+uZEp1sdCmSLn/ZI=
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] A summary list of all concerns related to not
rising the block size
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: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 14:48:56 -0000
On Friday 14. August 2015 09.26.33 Venzen Khaosan via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> In the scenario below, you argue that the current 1MB limit would lead
> to "constantly full" blocks. If the limit is increased to say 1.6GB
> then a government or banking group may choose to utilize 1.5GB of the
> capacity of each block (and pay fees or not) for their settlement
> network. Then how did upping the blocksize remedy anything? Or is this
> use-case not plausible?
Your usecase only makes sense if we assume that blocks are community property.
This is provably not the case, it has been proven with the recent spam attack,
people could just continue sending their payments without issues by just
increasing the fee a bit.
As such, the bigger blocks don't immediately get filled, it makes more space
for everyone. People abusing it will also have to spend a lot more money (that
goes to benefit the network as a whole) to disrupt it.
--
Thomas Zander
|
