rich1.0npub1azvhdrf9fu6n0tm7yez4j6zcxcedp2ct6nrcq3z74naqs7kgpk8s5t2krqhttps://nostr.ae/npub1azvhdrf9fu6n0tm7yez4j6zcxcedp2ct6nrcq3z74naqs7kgpk8s5t2krqnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-07-28 📝 Original message:> On Jul 28, 2015, at 5:43 PM, Jean-Paul Kogelman <jeanpaulkogelman at me.com> wrote: > > >> Enter a “temporary” anti-spam measure - a one megabyte block size limit. Let’s test this out, then increase it once we see how things work. So far so good… >> > > The block size limit was put in place as an anti-DoS measure (monster blocks), not "anti-spam". It was never intended to have any economic effect, not on spam and not on any future fee market. > > > jp > I’m using spam and DoS somewhat synonymously here, although you’re correct - DoS is a more accurate term. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 842 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150728/da5402c9/attachment.sig>