On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 06:42:32PM +0100, Mike Hearn wrote: > To summarize your post - it's another go at arguing for strongly > limited block sizes, this time on the grounds that large blocks make > it easier for $AUTHORITY to censor transactions? Is that right?
Yes. Now, can we solve this problem robustly with clever technology, as is done with UTXO fraud proofs? I can't see a way - can you? Gavin asked me to do a projection for what block sizes could be based on technology improving, and I think that analysis should consider carefully to what degree the current system's quite strong censorship resistance will be impacted. It's interesting to be talking about censorship of transactions, right as the support for implementing technical means to block SatoshiDice transactions is highest. If anything, I think Gregory Maxwell's findings he has posted on IRC showing roughly three quarters of transactions in blocks are SatoshiDice related shows how the current large number of validating nodes makes any effort at even discouraging unwanted traffic quite difficult. In other words, it's a strong sign the censorship resistance of Bitcoin works as intended. -- 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Symantec Endpoint Protection 12 positioned as A LEADER in The Forrester Wave(TM): Endpoint Security, Q1 2013 and "remains a good choice" in the endpoint security space. For insight on selecting the right partner to tackle endpoint security challenges, access the full report. http://p.sf.net/sfu/symantec-dev2dev
_______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
