e point by
someone 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-trans
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
: 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 . wrote:
No, with no blocksize limit, a spammer would would flood the network with
transactions until they
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Raystonn . 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 limit imposed by the p
-Original Message-
From: 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 0
ers, which is a nicely
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: Dr
6 matches
Mail list logo
