The cost of spamming the network and delaying transactions is, in a simplistic representation, a function of the cost per kB and the size of the block.
This is an important distinction.
Although larger blocks would increase the cost to delay other user's transactions, the exact same result could occur from a functioning fee market.
Increasing EITHER capacity OR the cost per kB would increase cost.
The ultimate result of these two strategies is different, however.
With a larger block size, the long-term cost to the network rises.
Each kB of block chain must be stored by all of the full nodes participating in the network forever, given the current system.
Each kB of transaction stored in the chain has a very real long-term "cost".
The increased cost is permanent.
With a higher fee per kB, the short-term cost to the network rises.
Transaction fees must rise for users, in order to be included in a block, during the spam attack.
The increased cost is temporary.
This trade-off should not be underestimated.
That is very true. The blockchain is already quite big as well and the storage required keeps rising. A temporary rise in fees could be interesting but would result in a more permanent rise as the number of bitcoin transactions grows with increased use I would imagine. Wasn't the idea of the "spam attack" that it was trying to simulate possible real world bitcoin activity later on in bitcoin's life?
Show Posts
