Why Satoshi's temporary anti-spam measure isn't temporary

Summary:

In a discussion on the scalability of the bitcoin network, Eric Lombrozo and Andrew LeCody had different views. Andrew argued that even with BIP101-size blocks, it would be easy to run a full Bitcoin node on limited hardware until 2020. However, Eric pointed out that increasing block size externalizes costs in dangerous ways. He suggested that there are some protocol design problems that need to be addressed before raising or getting rid of the block size limit. Eric believes that building higher-level tiers on top of Bitcoin can support high volume transaction processing without costing thousands of times more.Adam Back explained that Bitcoin's security properties make it hard for an alternative blockchain to bootstrap or provide meaningful security. Raystonn noted that a smaller block size is needed for additional decentralization; however, the benefit must be demonstrated by some power attacking and destroying a less decentralized currency before the market values it.In another email thread from 2015, a member of the Bitcoin-dev mailing list questioned Greg Maxwell about the temporary anti-spam measure implemented by Satoshi Nakamoto. The member suggested that high transaction fees will cause users to seek cheaper alternatives, potentially leading to a loss of value from Bitcoin. Maxwell responded by explaining that the current block size limit is necessary for security and decentralization. He also challenged the member's use of the term "liquidity" and argued that people are willing to pay higher fees for the powerful features of Bitcoin. The email thread ended with additional discussion among members of the mailing list.

Updated on: 2023-06-10T04:07:00.910181+00:00