Quote from: painlord2k on August 23, 2015, 08:13:37 PM

Quote from: RealBitcoin on August 23, 2015, 07:43:43 PM

I dont understand why is the 8 MB block size such a big issue?

Why would big attacks happen at 8MB but not at 1MB , they are just 2 arbitrary numbers with no significance ? I don't get it, please explain.

There are many attacks possible. Some work better against the majority node and others work better if a node is in the minority.
The advantage of 8MB blocks vs. 1 MB blocks is spamming them cost 8 times more.
When the costs move from $1,000s to $10,000 or $100,000 per day, the number of possible attackers is reduced many orders of magnitude and the time they could support the attack diminished.

Just moving fees from 1/1000th of $ to 1/100th of $ or 1/10th of $ change the completely the economy and feasibility of the attack.

But someone telling just "there are a variety of attack that could" is just telling nothing.

And, anyway, antifragile is just "what do not kill me make me stronger". Let spell out these attack vectors so they can be neutralized.

So you are in favor of raising the block size to 8MB, me too. It seems the most logical way to me.

If you want compressed blocks then for offchain transaction, maybe XAPO, Coinbase or Bitpay, will figure out a secure offchain BTC transfer.

The problem with XT is , that its a standalone chain, with mining and so forth, so it can fork bitcoin.

An offchain like XAPO, Coinbase or Bitpay, is centralized, but requires no mining, so small transactions can be performed that way.

ex. One friend sends 1 BTC to another friend, while both having Coinbase accounts, so it just transfers from 1 account to another. If the 2nd friend wants to withdraw the bitcoin, then he can, but for pointless back and forth TX, the offchain is enough.