Quote from: Andre# on January 16, 2016, 05:10:55 PM

As for as I know, it was Core who tried to push us into centrally planning the block size, instead of letting market forces find an optimum.

There was no push for anything, more like "inertia" during the prolonged discussions to find consensus.

Quote

Perhaps I'm technically ignorant. But I can tell when something starts to work badly. Apparently you can't. So either you don't use Bitcoin, or you are the ignorant one here.

Am I? What do you read below? That Satoshi considered it a problem if every micropayment didn't fit in for free/near zero costs? That every micropayment would definitely have to be included in - and do so in 1 block?

That's not what I'm reading:

Quote from: satoshi on August 04, 2010, 04:25:36 PM

Bitcoin isn't currently practical for very small micropayments. Not for things like pay per search or per page view without an aggregating mechanism, not things needing to pay less than 0.01. The dust spam limit is a first try at intentionally trying to prevent overly small micropayments like that.

Bitcoin is practical for smaller transactions than are practical with existing payment methods. Small enough to include what you might call the top of the micropayment range. But it doesn't claim to be practical for arbitrarily small micropayments.

Quote from: satoshi on August 05, 2010, 04:03:21 PM

Forgot to add the good part about micropayments. While I don't think Bitcoin is practical for smaller micropayments right now, it will eventually be as storage and bandwidth costs continue to fall. If Bitcoin catches on on a big scale, it may already be the case by that time. Another way they can become more practical is if I implement client-only mode and the number of network nodes consolidates into a smaller number of professional server farms. Whatever size micropayments you need will eventually be practical. I think in 5 or 10 years, the bandwidth and storage will seem trivial.

I am not claiming that the network is impervious to DoS attack. I think most P2P networks can be DoS attacked in numerous ways. (On a side note, I read that the record companies would like to DoS all the file sharing networks, but they don't want to break the anti-hacking/anti-abuse laws.)

If we started getting DoS attacked with loads of wasted transactions back and forth, you would need to start paying a 0.01 minimum transaction fee. 0.1.5 actually had an option to set that, but I took it out to reduce confusion. Free transactions are nice and we can keep it that way if people don't abuse them.

Quote from: satoshi on August 11, 2010, 11:28:50 PM

It would be nice to keep the blk*.dat files small as long as we can.

The eventual solution will be to not care how big it gets.

But for now, while it's still small, it's nice to keep it small so new users can get going faster. When I eventually implement client-only mode, that won't matter much anymore.

There's more work to do on transaction fees. In the event of a flood, you would still be able to jump the queue and get your transactions into the next block by paying a 0.01 transaction fee.