On the other hand, it would be much more expensive for the attacker to fill the blocks.
Double size, double number of transactions (on average), double cost.
IMO the issue is that if the ones who spam are miners who pocket most of the fees anyway, it's much too cheap to spam.
Filling the blocks with transactions of ~ $ 20 in fees should mean a large sum of money (regardless of whether they are miners or not).
If it's majority miners, it's not "regardless". They can rely on mining a large percentage of blocks, which in turn means a large percentage of the fees they paid get back to them.
Obviously, this type of attack is being made to manipulate the price. If the cost of carrying out the attack exceeds the benefits that can be achieved by manipulating the market, the attacker loses the incentive to carry them out.
Agreed. IMO the way to up the price of spamming is not having larger blocks, because a significant percent of those blocks get mined by the spammer anyway - be they large or small blocks. A better solution would be to have really widespread mining, so the attackers know that their chances of pocketing back their own spam fees are low.
Also, if 2mb or 4mb blocks are filled with 1sat / B transactions, no one would care, because the fees would still be low
My bad. I didn't write clearly (and I was not being accurate anyway).
I meant 1 satoshi as the transaction
amount, not the fee. I know dust transactions are discarded anyway, but I meant "amount as low as can be". A bit of an exaggeration, admittedly.
Jbreher recently mentioned the tx capacity of an average computer. I quote:
The only serious investigation into the matter has proven that your average 'home' computer today can handle a simple block size increase that will net us about 100 tx/s. And with a fix to core's crappy multithreading design, can handle block size increase up to about 500 tx/s. And that is without looking for other sw architecture improvements.
Jbreher is usually accurate in his factual statements, and his math is usually flawless.
However, he does have his bigblocker agenda in his mind when he posts. He failed to mention bandwidth and latency, which are the real bottlenecks - more so than storage or computing power.
I would like to be able to express my ideas more widely, but the language barrier does not allow me to do so.
I don't know what else you wanted to express, but you made yourself quite clear on these points. Don't think about the barrier - just say what you mean in the best way you manage. I think communication is just fine.
Merry Xmas everybody!