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.
