Quote from: Smoovious on March 13, 2013, 06:09:13 PM

Quote from: muyuu on March 13, 2013, 08:36:08 AM

I'm not making SD the scapegoat. I don't advocate for its blocking, simply leaving the blocksize alone would make transactions expensive enough SD would die on its own (along with micropayments).

It's just a fact of life that we cannot raise the block size so big that no system with free or negligible fees wouldn't take up the whole transaction space.

Looking forward, the easiest, most conservative patch was to just ban SD, BUT this is not what I'm calling for. The problem is that DDoSing the blockchain is simply allowed (could be even worse than SD, it could be on 0.00000 fees, at all - most devs want to support this "for the time being" meaning years to come).

They're not DDoS'ing the blockchain in the first place, and banning SD is hardly a conservative approach.

Throwing accusations against SD for their choice of business model, _IS_ making them into a scapegoat.

-- Smoov

They are scaling the transactions over sustainable levels paying a fee that doesn't make mining worth it on its own, and forcing to grow the block size if we want to continue allowing free transactions.

Call that whatever you want, that's basically playing the social engineering card.

Simple fact is, if you allow them to pay such low fees, they are growing over what BTC can currently support.

Making something completely free or extremely cheap, allows exploitation (DDoSing if you will, or if you don't like the term just call it overexploitation) of the resource above sustainable levels. This is actually what happens with spam and this is what PoW was developed to fight against originally.