[bitcoin-dev] Why Satoshi's temporary anti-spam measure isn't temporary

Eric Lombrozo elombrozo at gmail.com
Thu Jul 30 23:33:16 UTC 2015

> On Jul 30, 2015, at 5:29 AM, Gavin <gavinandresen at gmail.com> wrote:
> it is hard to have a rational conversation about that when even simple questions like 'what is s reasonable cost to run a full node' are met with silence.

Some of the risks are pretty hard to quantify. But I think this misses the bigger point - it very well *might* be possible to safely raise this limit or even get rid of it by first fixing some serious issues with the protocol. But over six years into the project and these issues continue to be all-but-ignored by most of the community (including at least a few core developers). I don’t think it’s really a matter of whether we agree on whether it’s good to raise the block size limit, Gavin. I think it’s a matter of a difference in priorities.

- Eric
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150730/0873af30/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150730/0873af30/attachment-0001.sig>

More information about the bitcoin-dev mailing list