Quote from: Ibian on March 07, 2016, 01:14:44 PM

Quote from: becoin on March 07, 2016, 01:10:31 PM

Quote from: Ibian on March 07, 2016, 01:02:25 PM

Quote from: becoin on March 07, 2016, 12:59:33 PM

Quote from: bitebits on March 07, 2016, 11:38:59 AM

On top of that, Segwit is not a scaling solution. Neither is the raise to 2MB blocks. Both do temporarily fix the current full blocks issue though.

There is no full block issue. There is spam issue. As soon as spam attack stops everything is perfectly normal. Increasing blocksize does nothing to solve spam issue. You can not solve spam issue by giving spammers more free space to spam!

It's only as free as the miners allow it to be. As long as people who actually pay a fee get their transfers done in a timely manner, no amount of unpaid ~~spam~~ transactions matters.

So?!... My point is: giving more space to spammers doesn't solve anything and just gives spammers incentives to spam more. What is your point?

My point is that unpaid transactions are only processed if independent individuals around the world willingly choose to do so of their own volition. What is your point?

There is also paid spam... for example if I pay 1 satoshi per byte, I can claim "I paid fees for my tx".

At a 1 satoshi per byte rate one can insert a billion bytes for a billion satoshi. That's ~4300$ for a gigabyte of spam. The blockchain is currently at 67GB, so spamming 67GB would cost just 288k USD. The costs for bandwidth, storage, processing etc of all that crap will exceed, over time, what was paid by the spammer, so, in a sense, it would represent a type of financial amplification attack, where the spammer incurs multiple costs to the ecosystem by spamming away - whether he does it for free or "pays fees" like 1 satoshi / byte. Even at 10 satoshi / byte the attack is feasible.