On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Raystonn . rayst...@hotmail.com wrote:
No, with no blocksize limit, a spammer would would flood the network with
transactions until they ran out of money.
I think you are forgetting even if you remove the blocksize limit, there is
still a hard message size
with a large short position in BTCUSD.
-Original Message-
From: Peter Todd
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 3:18 PM
To: Raystonn .
Cc: Patrick Mccorry (PGR) ; Bitcoin Dev
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] New attack identified and potential
solution described: Dropped-transaction spam attack against
: Re: [Bitcoin-development] New attack identified and potential solution
described: Dropped-transaction spam attack against the blocksize limit
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Raystonn . rayst...@hotmail.com wrote:
No, with no blocksize limit, a spammer would would flood the network
antifragile response for the Bitcoin network.
-Original Message-
From: Peter Todd
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 2:33 PM
To: Raystonn .
Cc: Patrick Mccorry (PGR) ; Bitcoin Dev
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] New attack identified and potential
solution described: Dropped-transaction spam
On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 03:01:34PM -0700, Raystonn . wrote:
There will always be a blocksize limit based on technological
considerations - the network has a finite bandwidth limit.
A bandwidth limit is not the same as a blocksize limit. Bandwidth
is unique to every individual. Miners in
: Peter Todd
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 2:44 PM
To: Raystonn .
Cc: Patrick Mccorry (PGR) ; Bitcoin Dev
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] New attack identified and potential
solution described: Dropped-transaction spam attack against the blocksize
limit
On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 02:33:54PM -0700
6 matches
Mail list logo
