Are any of the people in this spaces on Nostr? Laughing about attacking nodes.
nostr:note1txayucmk6qwdfu0wtk8hmk0xq55wh6t9kkxw0y5n7mj3qf86cmhsg0lztx
Discussion
Thnx for the post... this is sad, but I guess to be expected.
I genuinely want to understand this issue…are we saying bitcoin is harmed by fully used block space (like cpu cycles or RAM constraints?).
I don’t like spam. But with block size limit, does it really matter? And if it really does, then maybe block size needs to be smaller?
Luke argued for years that block size should be 300 kB. He’s rarely wrong, but I’m skeptical over this policy issue.
1) pretty much
2) no
3) congratulations on thinking this out.
I guess the argument I’m making boils down to bitcoin is doomed, right? I mean, if it can’t work as intended when block space is fully used, either block space drops or bitcoin is not useful…feels like a strange conclusion but compsci isn’t always straight forward
Got it.
I imagine the truth most properly expressed woul look like a table comparing low resource full node performance with and without spam vs. Block height
Something like: rpi3 nodes will become impractical at blockheight xxxxxx with spam but will remain practical until xxxxxx+yyyyyy without spam or something like that.
nostr:nprofile1qqsrwseygwgtu5688flrkwudqnwws0mvj52tsx5e07emzg7qwthe77qv68ayf nostr:nprofile1qyx8wumn8ghj7cnjvghxjmcpz4mhxue69uhk2er9dchxummnw3ezumrpdejqqgxwm2uphepw737mmejn7ja84vj6cw4r9n7zkeewurufcra03qh38cspy780 nostr:nprofile1qyt8wumn8ghj7ct5d3shxtnwdaehgu3wd3skueqpzamhxue69uhkv6tvw3jhytnwdaehgu3wwa5kuegqyrd7qcz6n3e3w2adw536xfajxm24af9kxn5qu79fqy7m0y0cl4djcw84nqz nostr:nprofile1qyt8wumn8ghj7cnfw33k76twv4ezuum0vd5kzmqpz4mhxue69uhk2er9dchxummnw3ezumrpdejqqg909a5z75fgnxzjcej5lur94fq95sw3tc43edkfzucjxczhgncxuc80g2ys
Ah. Massive assholes