Well one reason would be, that it would sabotage Blockstream, because they want smaller block sizes to justify the solutions they are offering for scaling.
Well this is turning into a fight over power and there is no denying that part.
Most people also agree, increasing Blocksizes to something much bigger, will also open new opportunities for people to spam the network.
The limit was placed there in the first place by Satoshi to prevent this. But the argument saying "bigger blocks means more attacks so we don't increase it" is wrong and bullshit.
There's no point in increasing the blocksize at all while that attack still exists, an attacker could disrupt the network in a far more destructive fashion than the simple spamming attacks that we get today.
simple spamming attacks? are you for real!
there has been 80,000 transactions in the mempool today and fee has gone up to 180 satoshi/byte and it is increasing nonstop.
I don't get how bigger block, which causes the attacker to lose more money from his attacks can lead to a more destructive attack?
oh and P.S for the majority of the past 8 years the 1000 byte block size was almost empty and ever since this dick measuring fight over block size started we are seeing full blocks and big mempool.
Yes. Sigops per block can be used to attack the network, and it's a serious attack. Only segwit solves this, although it could just be solved separately with a softfork that performs only that change.
Ok, explain to me after activation of Segwit what is going to prevent the attacker from sending a transaction every 5 seconds from each of his 100 keys and filling the blocks again making another 80K-100K unconfirmed transactions in the mempool?
Show Posts
