📅 Original date posted:2015-08-14
📝 Original message: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
Thomas Zander [ARCHIVE] /
npub1du…vyg93
2023-06-07 15:46:44
in reply to nevent1q…d466
Author Public Key
npub1du3xh5wgds32a5fweqkd9k45kh30wl7kv2kyu8ugz9c2ztdg00tqqvyg93Published at
2023-06-07 15:46:44Event JSON
{
"id": "3ccb650c4dec7978b85a1d26b6812e90d45914ca6f70229f2487243462051a64",
"pubkey": "6f226bd1c86c22aed12ec82cd2dab4b5e2f77fd662ac4e1f881170a12da87bd6",
"created_at": 1686152804,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"ed48e8b49c34ef64a5a6814f13a41de999188447a7a574d6553030c329674671",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"30c44ebc7b110410669f31cddf5da9966a6743c1a4630b304e0658f2e03c655b",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"acb285844a596699e52000de0aaf258d239adaa6a115451c0954683e7f828773"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-08-14\n📝 Original message:On Friday 14. August 2015 09.26.33 Venzen Khaosan via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e In the scenario below, you argue that the current 1MB limit would lead\n\u003e to \"constantly full\" blocks. If the limit is increased to say 1.6GB\n\u003e then a government or banking group may choose to utilize 1.5GB of the\n\u003e capacity of each block (and pay fees or not) for their settlement\n\u003e network. Then how did upping the blocksize remedy anything? Or is this\n\u003e use-case not plausible?\n\nYour usecase only makes sense if we assume that blocks are community property.\n\nThis is provably not the case, it has been proven with the recent spam attack, \npeople could just continue sending their payments without issues by just \nincreasing the fee a bit.\n\nAs such, the bigger blocks don't immediately get filled, it makes more space \nfor everyone. People abusing it will also have to spend a lot more money (that \ngoes to benefit the network as a whole) to disrupt it.\n-- \nThomas Zander",
"sig": "98a26c2b7e79fac9c540645dc88d1a61464557319acf40f7fc99de2c861388f18e493db315adf32b8e74ecdbe8b8c9e6cd32d4658999d47c079cf76468827433"
}