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 _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
