Unsigned Message: Thats not satoshi...
satoshi would know that a signed message is needed if he is interested that his opinion is recognized
That would make that particular issue settle by his intervention BUT it would reinforce the point that if an authority can impose their opinion by their "status" then the system is broken. It would create a precedent where in each dispute satoshi must say his opinion with a signed message which would in turn prove that BTC is centralized around his decisions. |
|
|
|
In August, a post appeared in the dev mailing list, signed as Satoshi Nakamoto, with an email of Satoshi Nakamoto (not spoofed), from an email that has not been known to have been hacked, which contained the following message and warning regarding the attempted XT coup: I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing list. I had hoped the debate would resolve and that a fork proposal would achieve widespread consensus. However with the formal release of Bitcoin XT 0.11A, this looks unlikely to happen, and so I am forced to share my concerns about this very dangerous fork. The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my original vision, but nothing could be further from the truth. When I designed Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future modifications to the consensus rules difficult without near unanimous agreement. Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto. Nearly everyone has to agree on a change, and they have to do it without being forced or pressured into it. By doing a fork in this way, these developers are violating the "original vision" they claim to honour. They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was supposed to be. However I acknowledge that a lot has changed since that time, and new knowledge has been gained that contradicts some of my early opinions. For example I didn't anticipate pooled mining and its effects on the security of the network. Making Bitcoin a competitive monetary system while also preserving its security properties is not a trivial problem, and we should take more time to come up with a robust solution. I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism. If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what "Bitcoin" is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but to declare Bitcoin a failed project. Bitcoin was meant to be both technically and socially robust. This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold. Satoshi Nakamoto https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.htmlObviously, the context is still massively relevant to the new "classic" fork attempt as the ingredients are the same. If the identity of the poster is legitimate, then there is a real risk that a fork might force Satoshi to declare Bitcoin a failed project due to the coup in governance. That will official #REKT bitcoin and crypto in general, no matter which part of the argument anyone supports. Some say Satoshi needed to sign the mail but there is not a single instance where Satoshi signed anything. Plus if he did he would also be doing the same thing he condemns regarding authority influence. So his message being semi-official / semi-unofficial, can act as a warning, but also as a non-decisive influence. I want to see the community's weighing of that particular risk, if a fork occurs: Do you expect Satoshi to come out and make an official obituary of BTC if BTC forks - which would make Hearn's (or the other 80something obituaries) pale in comparison? |
|
|
|
I think one of the reasons that some people like conspiracy theories is
I think that they like to feel like there is a group of people who are so smart and powerful that they can pull the wool over an entire country or in fact even an entire world's eyes. That certainly makes them feel like somehow they're protected, even if it's not in they're best interest.
The banking sector is full of conspiracies. There is not a single market that they haven't conspired together in order to "fix" it - and some times they have been caught, having to pay fines or settlements. Why would the emerging cryptocurrency market be any different - especially when it is a market that if it succeeds will cut on their revenues and profits? |
|
|
|
It's funny how the dev side has more small blockers, while the speculation side is almost entirely large blockers nowadays. Why is this? Because the dev side doesn't understand markets.
XT fork news and classic fork news have both sent price lower. The markets were going pretty well despite the "fullblockalypse" bullshit. 200->300->400->450 - even 500+ for a while. For the most part, everyone had priced in that an upgrade will be implemented at some point and all will be well. The moon was the limit. The core roadmap was in the same line. -Violent hard forks with low consensus that will split the currency / double the monetary supply / create distrust for the future of the currency for possible future forking events -governance coups, -dividing the community and throwing around "bitcoin is dead" to the mainstream media ...are not by any means "market-friendly". Plus driving out the bulk of current developers, who are actually developing solutions, and pretending to be the ultra-dev for changing a 1MB constant to 2MB, and leaving bitcoin development AND MAINTENANCE, orphan for the future, is not "bullish" by any standard. And if Satoshi's warning is true that in case of a successful fork he'll be forced to declare Bitcoin a failure (I would probably disassociate my name as well after a hostile takeover and admit defeat) then we have a real problem ahead of us. No, the "classic" people do not understand markets, unless their purpose is to destroy bitcoin - in which case they understand markets pretty well. |
|
|
|
That's a good story. If you support the status quo, that's the story you tell. But it isn't accurate.
If you have any kind of rough consensus, or even just lack of strong consensus to oppose a change, then support of the majority of miners is sufficient to make any change you want. That's the reality.
Yes, that's true. But the miners here are not changing things right now. They are sticking with the 1MB version which exists since the days of Satoshi because Maybe. Or maybe they are just doing it because it suits their economic interests to keep blocks small, as TPTB said. I consider that quite plausible, I'm surprised you don't. With the existing game theory? Nah. Just because the limit will go to 2-4-8-20, doesn't mean they *have* to mine >1mb, or even >10kb. There is nothing stopping them from mining 0-tx blocks even if blocks go to 10MB tomorrow morning. Some are mining zero tx blocks right now. Wrong. Increasing that limit allows miners elsewhere (Bitfury, KnC, 21.co, etc.) to overcome their competitive advantage, and to even drive Chinese miners off the network altogether by mining larger blocks that China can't support. I don't understand. Let's say Chinese adopt software that SUPPORTS large blocks, but configure it in a way where it mines zero-tx blocks on purpose, or very high fee txs that are top-priority for the senders, something like <50kb in txs per block. How will others "drive them out"? With what mechanism? By creating large blocks that take a long time to reach China. Somehow I doubt that they can't figure a solution out (in the networking sense). You could have 4-5 nodes spread all around the world, in pretty well connected data centers, to send you everything you need in a few seconds at most - or do it through elsewhere. If the chinese miner has a good electric bill advantage, good equipment, the ability to mine 0-tx blocks (to gain a broadcast advantage / fast propagation compared to others who transmit a few mb worth of blocks) and he only gets delayed a bit when receiving large solved blocks by others (if he is not doing network work-arounds), I think he still has the edge. |
|
|
|
That's a good story. If you support the status quo, that's the story you tell. But it isn't accurate.
If you have any kind of rough consensus, or even just lack of strong consensus to oppose a change, then support of the majority of miners is sufficient to make any change you want. That's the reality.
Yes, that's true. But the miners here are not changing things right now. They are sticking with the 1MB version which exists since the days of Satoshi because Maybe. Or maybe they are just doing it because it suits their economic interests to keep blocks small, as TPTB said. I consider that quite plausible, I'm surprised you don't. With the existing game theory? Nah. Just because the limit will go to 2-4-8-20, doesn't mean they *have* to mine >1mb, or even >10kb. There is nothing stopping them from mining 0-tx blocks even if blocks go to 10MB tomorrow morning. Some are mining zero tx blocks right now. Wrong. Increasing that limit allows miners elsewhere (Bitfury, KnC, 21.co, etc.) to overcome their competitive advantage, and to even drive Chinese miners off the network altogether by mining larger blocks that China can't support. I don't understand. Let's say Chinese adopt software that SUPPORTS large blocks, but configure it in a way where it mines zero-tx blocks on purpose, or very high fee txs that are top-priority for the senders, something like <50kb in txs per block. How will others "drive them out"? With what mechanism? |
|
|
|
That's a good story. If you support the status quo, that's the story you tell. But it isn't accurate.
If you have any kind of rough consensus, or even just lack of strong consensus to oppose a change, then support of the majority of miners is sufficient to make any change you want. That's the reality.
Yes, that's true. But the miners here are not changing things right now. They are sticking with the 1MB version which exists since the days of Satoshi because Maybe. Or maybe they are just doing it because it suits their economic interests to keep blocks small, as TPTB said. I consider that quite plausible, I'm surprised you don't. With the existing game theory? Nah. Just because the limit will go to 2-4-8-20, doesn't mean they *have* to mine >1mb, or even >10kb. There is nothing stopping them from mining 0-tx blocks even if blocks go to 10MB tomorrow morning. Some are mining zero tx blocks right now. The fees lost would be insignificant because the fee market is underdeveloped and people would have even less incentive to pay if space is abundant. Oversupply of space = no need to pay. Miners mining 0-tx blocks would definitely compensate for any lack of fee revenue by getting a few blocks first, compared to their competitors who take time to propagate their finding as they attach a lot of transaction data to their their block solution and get REKT orphaned in the process. Incorrect. (I think you meant "without overwhelming consensus' rather than "without consent"?)
Yep. |
|
|
|
Bottom line is any global constant in the protocol is not decentralization. Period. End of story.
If a coin has active development and the protocol is not finalized 100% and set in stone for eternity, there will always be developer-related centralization. And btc is still ver 0.something, so, it's a work in progress. In a sense, the more development a coin will have the more centralized it will be. The less development it has, the more decentralized it can become but it will also be less and less relevant if it becomes a dinosaur. It seems development and centralization may have an inversely proportional relationship. |
|
|
|
That's a good story. If you support the status quo, that's the story you tell. But it isn't accurate.
If you have any kind of rough consensus, or even just lack of strong consensus to oppose a change, then support of the majority of miners is sufficient to make any change you want. That's the reality.
Yes, that's true. But the miners here are not changing things right now. They are sticking with the 1MB version which exists since the days of Satoshi because a) one proposal isn't ready b) the other proposal is nightmarish c) if either proposal is followed without consent, you have 2 competing coins / you have doubled the monetary base / diluted coins / led to mass dumping from unbelievers of the X or Y fork / created distrust for the future of the currency because such forks may repeat again and again. |
|
|
|
Given Bitcoin has been 51% attacked by Chinese miners now (refusing to allow an increase in the block size)
There is no consensus between developers and it's the miners fault for not forking the coin to two competing coins? That's a 51% attack? If there was dev consensus and they refused that would be a different issue altogether. The (big Chinese) miners have chosen sides here, whether they state it in those terms or not. They have stated they will use Core, which is itself not a consensus among developers, it is a small block solution supported by some of the developers. The thing works as follows. You have the code (Bitcoin) and for serious changes to be implemented you have to have a very large consensus. The 1MB exists. Now. It's not a supported "small block solution". The question is what to do next for scaling. Core has a roadmap with segwit and future block increases. "Classic" says we hard fork it with 2mb. So there is a) what we have right now (this already exists, it's not something "planned" that needs supports to materialize) b) two different plans for scaling which, if they don't have near unanimous agreement, will result to forking the currency because each one has different supporters. |
|
|
|
Given Bitcoin has been 51% attacked by Chinese miners now (refusing to allow an increase in the block size)
There is no consensus between developers and it's the miners fault for not forking the coin to two competing coins? That's a 51% attack? If there was dev consensus and they refused that would be a different issue altogether. |
|
|
|
Were they Cryptsy's own holdings or depositors ?
Well... if you leave your coins in the exchange, the exchange will eventually consider it "own holdings" after a while. It happens every single time in crypto  |
|
|
|
If Hearn is correct that merely 2 Chinese miners own more then 50% of the blockchain, we haven't seen the bottom of Bitcoin.
Nationality is irrelevant. Mining centralization is a problem in general (until a solution is found) and it doesn't affect BTC only, but rather tens of cryptocurrencies including DASH 404360 37 seconds 1 4.17857144 DASH 3847.3 Coinmine.pl404359 1 minute 2 14.72181423 DASH 3860.0 Coinmine.pl404358 1 minute 7 2,357.21411384 DASH 3947.6 Coinmine.pl404357 4 minutes 7 290.44181073 DASH 4138.6 Unknown 404356 8 minutes 3 319.08682763 DASH 4272.6 Unknown 404355 10 minutes 13 3,164.26475198 DASH 4501.3 Such Pool 404354 14 minutes 5 58.51273415 DASH 4669.2 Coinmine.pl |
|
|
|
By the way, there was another message by "Satoshi" recently, denying that he was Craig Wright -- and then adding "We are all Satoshi". That last part is obviously something that Satoshi would not have written. I can only think that the hacker is aware that everybody is aware that the account has been compromised, and does not care to pretend anymore.
Sound, sensible analysis as always. Good to have you home, professor. The problem is that the anti-fork message was not spoofed and the writing style matches. http://pastebin.com/Ct5M8fa2Here's a quick technical analysis of the email sent to the bitcoin-dev mailing list today at http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.html The email was sent from an anonymous email provider called vistomail.com which gives the appearance of being out of service. However you can see the logins at https://webmail.vistomail.com/ The vistomail servers are authorised to originate email by their IP address via the SPF DNS records . Satoshi used satoshi@vistomail.com when first announcing Bitcoin http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2009-January/014994.html From this you can safely conclude the email did originate from vistomail.com servers and was not spoofed. It does not prove the account was not hacked of course. Partial headers from the email: Received: from mail.vistomail.com (vistomail.com [190.97.163.93]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2175813F for < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 19:00:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from DS04 ([190.97.163.93]) by vistomail.com with MailEnable ESMTP; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 13:51:14 -0500 DNS RECORDS FOLLOW: vistomail.com descriptive text "v=spf1 include:_spf.google.com ip4:190.97.163.93 ~all" vistomail.com has address 190.97.163.93 vistomail.com mail is handled by 10 vistomail.com. The "we are all satoshi" was spoofed and the writing style or expressions didn't match. So the second doesn't invalidate the first. Additionally, that particular email address is not known to have been stolen. Therefore the August message could be legit - it's a very serious risk for BTC. Risk, in the sense that if the proposed fork goes ahead, we'll have Satoshi's second coming after the forkageddon to proclaim Bitcoin is a failure since it failed to protect itself from this kind of attack. |
|
|
|
|
The scaling issue isn't solved in any cryptocurrency right now. We are not affected by it due to low blockchain use compared to BTC. If we had BTC-level use it would be the same or worse (due to mixing overhead).
|
|
|
|
Well, it is a matter of feeling; but I find the tone of that letter very unlike that of previous writings. Too dramatic, almost hysterical. But very much like the tone of Adam and other ardent small-blockians. The personal and nominal attack against Gavin, in particular, was very strange for Satoshi, but very much like Adam's tone at the time.
I don't see it as emotional. (I mean overemotional / hysterical). Strong worded, yes. The hacker who got hold of Satoshi's email account may have been a smallblockian or Blockstream sympathizer, or may have offered his services to them. (How else would he profit from that "asset"?)
Hm... Satoshi is either dead, or is much more worried about hiding his identity than about the fate of bitcoin (which he apparently abandoned in 2010).
I find that hard to believe. I mean if he is serious about the "power to the people" concept why would he abandon it? It may seem that way but I'm sure he's following it. That, by the way, is another reason why I assumed that the letter was fake when it came out: if he did not care to intervene in all the previous critical events, why would he come in just to take a side (the wrong one!) in a relatively minor technical dispute?
If he felt that this (social engineering + coup) genuinely endangers the project, more than any technical issue, to the point where he'd have to declare the project dead if it succeeded, it's not very unbelievable. It's ironic that you could write good code and still have humans be the weakest component of the system. By the way, there was another message by "Satoshi" recently, denying that he was Craig Wright -- and then adding "We are all Satoshi". That last part is obviously something that Satoshi would not have written.
Not only that, but if you notice that particular post with Wright, he had just one space between the two sentences. Yet Satoshi was apparently double-spacing even one-liners: That means a lot coming from you, Hal. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
As for as I know, it was Core who tried to push us into centrally planning the block size, instead of letting market forces find an optimum.
There was no push for anything, more like "inertia" during the prolonged discussions to find consensus. Perhaps I'm technically ignorant. But I can tell when something starts to work badly. Apparently you can't. So either you don't use Bitcoin, or you are the ignorant one here.
Am I? What do you read below? That Satoshi considered it a problem if every micropayment didn't fit in for free/near zero costs? That every micropayment would definitely have to be included in - and do so in 1 block? That's not what I'm reading: Bitcoin isn't currently practical for very small micropayments. Not for things like pay per search or per page view without an aggregating mechanism, not things needing to pay less than 0.01. The dust spam limit is a first try at intentionally trying to prevent overly small micropayments like that.
Bitcoin is practical for smaller transactions than are practical with existing payment methods. Small enough to include what you might call the top of the micropayment range. But it doesn't claim to be practical for arbitrarily small micropayments.
Forgot to add the good part about micropayments. While I don't think Bitcoin is practical for smaller micropayments right now, it will eventually be as storage and bandwidth costs continue to fall. If Bitcoin catches on on a big scale, it may already be the case by that time. Another way they can become more practical is if I implement client-only mode and the number of network nodes consolidates into a smaller number of professional server farms. Whatever size micropayments you need will eventually be practical. I think in 5 or 10 years, the bandwidth and storage will seem trivial.
I am not claiming that the network is impervious to DoS attack. I think most P2P networks can be DoS attacked in numerous ways. (On a side note, I read that the record companies would like to DoS all the file sharing networks, but they don't want to break the anti-hacking/anti-abuse laws.)
If we started getting DoS attacked with loads of wasted transactions back and forth, you would need to start paying a 0.01 minimum transaction fee. 0.1.5 actually had an option to set that, but I took it out to reduce confusion. Free transactions are nice and we can keep it that way if people don't abuse them.
It would be nice to keep the blk*.dat files small as long as we can.
The eventual solution will be to not care how big it gets.
But for now, while it's still small, it's nice to keep it small so new users can get going faster. When I eventually implement client-only mode, that won't matter much anymore.
There's more work to do on transaction fees. In the event of a flood, you would still be able to jump the queue and get your transactions into the next block by paying a 0.01 transaction fee.
|
|
|
|
I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing list. .....
Satoshi Nakamoto
I had not seen that letter until now, but it looks like a lot of vague bla-bla without even a hint of a technical argument. I'll eat my hat if that was written by any of the very skilled mathematician/cryptographer(s) that designed bitcoin. That letter is fake. It was not know at the time, but Satoshi's mail account has been taken over -- no one knows how or when. That was proved last September, when "Satoshi" sent a dox extorsion email from that address to some prominent bitcoiner. Anyway, the phrase "in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the use of populist tactics" is a dead giveaway of its source. I only cannot guess who wrote it because there are several people at Blockstream, and many more among its supporters, who would have used those words, would not have any scruples in sending a forged message to support their agenda, and are naive enough to think that the trick would work. The second paragraph, moreover, is totally at odds with the very idea that makes the protocol work. Satoshi's writing and that particular letter have something in common: Two spaces after a sentence ends. That's the "old" way of writing in the typewriter era where you hit space twice - and you carry over that habit to the PC keyb into the late 80s/90s. You do it too because you are of the "old guard". Younger people, hackers, script-kiddies, well... not only don't they know these things but they won't even spot the difference in order to emulate it. The two spaces, for me, increases the chance that it was original. As for IPs, mail spoofs, hacked accounts, I can't tell you who controls what. The writing style is quite neutral and it feels ok'ish though and in line with what Satoshi has said in the past. As for blockstream people doing it, you are saying that they hacked Satoshi accounts back when it happened and then they used them when convenient to promote their agenda? And how would they know that Satoshi wouldn't pull the curtain on them? Especially after Satoshi came out and said he is not Dorian? It's a very long leap. |
|
|
|
But I'm surprised that Dash isn't already much higher than it is. I mean, It's the best only cash substitute out there as far as I can see.
First ccex fiasco (300 btc buying drks at 0.001 for poloniex dumping) Then the dumps by all those accumulating at <0.002) Then mintpal (hundreds of thousands of dkrs) Then cryptsy providing selling pressure for a long time, with something like half a million coins It's actually a testament to how strong the buying has been despite all these major supply events. Now something else: In 2014 I proposed quantum-resistance-proofing for DASH so that we get "first quantum resistant" coin. Quantum computers could shut down any crypto project and, IMO, one should hold QC-resistant coins even if for mere diversification purposes. There is a niche there (like anonymity). As news for quantum computing start to get out, dash's price could spike for being QC-resistant if it adopts QC-resistant algorithms (as long as these aren't too full of bloat). It seems that someone else will be taking the honors. I've been reading the Iota whitepaper and it seems Iota will be the first - unless I missed some alt. According to its whitepaper, a QC would have 17bn times faster mining than normal bitcoin mining speed. However Iota would reduce this to just 81x. 81x is disappointing for my standards, but anyway - it instantly positions itself as a hedge for QC-introduced instability in the crypto market when a QC-related announcement comes (for now it's just vapor - there is no coin). http://188.138.57.93/tangle.pdf4.3 Resistance to quantum computations
It is known that a (today still hypothetical) sufficiently large quantum computer can
be very efficient for handling problems where only way to solve it is to guess answers
repeatedly and check them. The process of finding a nonce in order to generate a
Bitcoin block is a good example of such a problem. As of today, in average one must
check around 268 nonces to find a suitable hash that allows to generate a block. It
is known (see e.g. [8]) that a quantum computer would need Θ(√
N) operations to
solve a problem of the above sort that needs Θ(N) operations on a classical computer.
Therefore, a quantum computer would be around √
2
68 = 234 ≈ 17 billion times more
efficient in Bitcoin mining than a classical one. Also, it is worth noting that if
blockchain does not increase its difficulty in response to increased hashing power,
that would lead to increased rate of orphaned blocks.
Observe that, for the same reason, the “large weight” attack described above
would also be much more efficient on a quantum computer. However, capping the
weight from above (as suggested in Section 4) would effectively fence off a quantum
computer attack as well, due to the following reason. In iota, the number of nonces
that one needs to check in order to find a suitable hash for issuing a transaction
is not so huge, it is only around 38
. The gain of efficiency for an “ideal” quantum
computer would be therefore of order 34 = 81, which is already quite acceptable (also,
remember that Θ(√
N) could easily mean 10√
N or so). Also, the algorithm is such
that the time to find a nonce is not much larger than the time needed for other tasks
necessary to issue a transaction, and the latter part is much more resistant against
quantum computing.
Therefore, the above discussion suggests that the tangle provides a much better
protection against an adversary with a quantum computer compared to the (Bitcoin)
blockchain. |
|
|
|
Define spam.
Is Gambling spam?
Daily-payouts of cloudminers?
Every kind of blockchain-graffiti?
everything < 1$?
<5$
Who decides what spam is and what usecases to restrict? If you decide now that some kind of transaction are considered as spam and thus prohibited, you act like a regulator. Every node and miner can decide to prohibit spam - and should be allowed to chose his own definition of spam - but we don't need a central regime where a bunch of people decide which transactions are not worth to get in the chain.
Satoshi placed BTC in the "Small enough to include what you might call the top of the micropayment range" market segment. If I had to take a guess, with paypal charging ~0.35$ for receiving money (plus % fees), I'd say that it's highly impractical for things that are close to 1$. Banks typically charge 0.30 euro to 0.35 euro for card transactions or epayments over here where I live. So BTC could probably be used for like 1$ transactions right now, but not a few cents. This could change in the future though. Bitcoin isn't currently practical for very small micropayments. Not for things like pay per search or per page view without an aggregating mechanism, not things needing to pay less than 0.01. The dust spam limit is a first try at intentionally trying to prevent overly small micropayments like that.
Bitcoin is practical for smaller transactions than are practical with existing payment methods. Small enough to include what you might call the top of the micropayment range. But it doesn't claim to be practical for arbitrarily small micropayments.
Forgot to add the good part about micropayments. While I don't think Bitcoin is practical for smaller micropayments right now, it will eventually be as storage and bandwidth costs continue to fall. If Bitcoin catches on on a big scale, it may already be the case by that time. Another way they can become more practical is if I implement client-only mode and the number of network nodes consolidates into a smaller number of professional server farms. Whatever size micropayments you need will eventually be practical. I think in 5 or 10 years, the bandwidth and storage will seem trivial.
I am not claiming that the network is impervious to DoS attack. I think most P2P networks can be DoS attacked in numerous ways. (On a side note, I read that the record companies would like to DoS all the file sharing networks, but they don't want to break the anti-hacking/anti-abuse laws.)
If we started getting DoS attacked with loads of wasted transactions back and forth, you would need to start paying a 0.01 minimum transaction fee. 0.1.5 actually had an option to set that, but I took it out to reduce confusion. Free transactions are nice and we can keep it that way if people don't abuse them.
It would be nice to keep the blk*.dat files small as long as we can.
The eventual solution will be to not care how big it gets.
But for now, while it's still small, it's nice to keep it small so new users can get going faster. When I eventually implement client-only mode, that won't matter much anymore.
There's more work to do on transaction fees. In the event of a flood, you would still be able to jump the queue and get your transactions into the next block by paying a 0.01 transaction fee.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
