Quote from: AlexGR on March 12, 2016, 12:44:02 PM

There is no moral approach.

Of course there is. You hate spam, which is understandable. But if we're going to ban everything we hate then let's accept that it isn't normatively neutral to do so. The system should be able to handle some spam, we just need to make sure it doesn't bring it to its knees. At the same time we must make sure that measures to counter spam doesn't get in the way of other users. An open distributed decentralized ledger without spam or other unsavory things is a dead ledger.

Quote from: AlexGR on March 12, 2016, 12:44:02 PM

My reasoning goes like this: What would Satoshi do if he had to deal with the situation like this?

a) Give spammers as much space as they want - ever increasing capacity to meed their ever-increasing demands for cheap space to bloat, at near-zero costs for them, and significant costs for the network, increased centralization and problems to btc's adoption

b) Do something about it (blocksize limits / fees directly / fees as a consequence of a fee market, etc)

If we put aside the fact that that's an idiotic approach to an issue, it's worth noting that we don't have to imagine what Satoshi would have done.

He set the block size limit to orders of magnitude larger than the then average block size.