{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1r3san9v5njl6798hvauyu9ntm6r9c7u8s0t65wls58gpfdcvqp5sa48d0u","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1r3san9v5njl6798hvauyu9ntm6r9c7u8s0t65wls58gpfdcvqp5sa48d0u","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-07-28\n📝 Original message:Does it matter even in the slightest why the block size limit was put in\nplace? It does not. Bitcoin is a decentralized payment network, and the\nrelationship between utility (block size) and decentralization is\nempirical. Why the 1MB limit was put in place at the time might be a\nhistorically interesting question, but it bears little relevance to the\npresent engineering issues.\n\nOn Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 5:43 PM, Jean-Paul Kogelman via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e\n\u003e \u003e Enter a “temporary” anti-spam measure - a one megabyte block size limit.\n\u003e Let’s test this out, then increase it once we see how things work. So far\n\u003e so good…\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e The block size limit was put in place as an anti-DoS measure (monster\n\u003e blocks), not \"anti-spam\". It was never intended to have any economic\n\u003e effect, not on spam and not on any future fee market.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e jp\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150728/106ea598/attachment.html\u003e"}