đź“… Original date posted:2015-07-29
đź“ť Original message:On Wednesday 29. July 2015 03.43.50 Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > > Enter a “temporary” anti-spam measure - a one megabyte block size limit.
> > The one megabyte limit was nothing to do with anti spam. It was a quick
> > 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 make the
> > wallet too painful to use, before there were any alternatives.
> I thought I clarified this in an earlier post - I meant DoS. Please don’t
> digress on such stupid technicalities.
This particular technicality is rather important since it removes the basis of
your argument.
More specifically, your 4 points of what you claim Satoshi expected to happen,
but didn't were in actual fact not planned, wanted or predicted by Satoshi.
So, you can do name calling if you want, but maybe thats not very productive.
> > The plan was to remove it once SPV wallets were widespread. But Satoshi
> > left before that happened.
> >
>
> Guess what? SPV wallets are still not particularly widespread…
This is an odd statement, we keep on hearing about low bitcoin-core node count
and since that is the only alternative, your statement can only be interpreted
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 completely
irrelevant to the point of this thread...
--
Thomas Zander
Thomas Zander [ARCHIVE] /
npub1du…vyg93
2023-06-07 15:43:51
in reply to nevent1q…4n9y
Author Public Key
npub1du3xh5wgds32a5fweqkd9k45kh30wl7kv2kyu8ugz9c2ztdg00tqqvyg93Published at
2023-06-07 15:43:51Event JSON
{
"id": "73d56485c23f86007c7d66a8c410ebd473d2bd14a273bd99c628ee57d5de0a84",
"pubkey": "6f226bd1c86c22aed12ec82cd2dab4b5e2f77fd662ac4e1f881170a12da87bd6",
"created_at": 1686152631,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"78a0486a22513a5dc11dcf66d2407a7e121084a44d2ff4e480cb77dad38c8ddd",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"bd8da1ca19f431716e8e985385767bc0662e74a1ed66e1ec50c1725ccb797d78",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"e899768d254f3537af7e26455968583632d0ab0bd4c780445eacfa087ac80d8f"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-07-29\n📝 Original message:On Wednesday 29. July 2015 03.43.50 Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e \u003e \u003e Enter a “temporary” anti-spam measure - a one megabyte block size limit.\n\n\u003e \u003e The one megabyte limit was nothing to do with anti spam. It was a quick\n\u003e \u003e kludge to try and avoid the user experience degrading significantly in\n\u003e \u003e the event of a \"DoS block\", back when everyone used Bitcoin-Qt. The fear\n\u003e \u003e was that some malicious miner would generate massive blocks and make the\n\u003e \u003e wallet too painful to use, before there were any alternatives.\n\n\u003e I thought I clarified this in an earlier post - I meant DoS. Please don’t\n\u003e digress on such stupid technicalities.\n\nThis particular technicality is rather important since it removes the basis of \nyour argument.\nMore specifically, your 4 points of what you claim Satoshi expected to happen, \nbut didn't were in actual fact not planned, wanted or predicted by Satoshi.\n\nSo, you can do name calling if you want, but maybe thats not very productive.\n\n\u003e \u003e The plan was to remove it once SPV wallets were widespread. But Satoshi\n\u003e \u003e left before that happened.\n\u003e \u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e Guess what? SPV wallets are still not particularly widespread…\n\nThis is an odd statement, we keep on hearing about low bitcoin-core node count \nand since that is the only alternative, your statement can only be interpreted \nas saying there really are not a whole lot of users out there..\nIs that really what you mean?\n\n\u003e and those that\n\u003e are out there are notoriously terrible at detecting network forks and\n\u003e making sure they are on the right one.\n\nWhat is the point you are trying to make with that? It seems completely \nirrelevant to the point of this thread...\n-- \nThomas Zander",
"sig": "6457183dfb3840fcc4b66399fa7e569cdcbcf40c988c38feb044f28ee0df8fe8f94bb4600386570fe3379142e405137b5c1d56e4366eb3d5638272be4f3fbf0d"
}