Anonymous Kid wrote: Why the fuck did Satoshi implement the 1 MB blocksize limit?
To mess with your head, you vulgar retard, because he hates you personally. To let us know who the quality posters
arent, by inciting the creation of trashy megathreads such as this one; he trolled you! Most of all, to divide the wheat from the tares in the realm of Bitcoin engineering: Peoples blocksize opinions rapidly expose their true (mis)understanding of scaling issues. Scaling is always a hard engineering problem; and he wanted for it to be easy to spot those who are innately incapable of ever grasping it.
But mostly just to mess with your head, personally, and laugh at you.
(Giving the answer which the question is worth. I did not need to read more than the subject line to know that this was a stupid thread, which I studiously ignored until it refused to die. @#$@)
What is amazing in this, however, is how elementary and fundamentally wrong it is. It denies the very design of bitcoin !
The design of Bitcoin is a subject about which you demonstrate worse than zero understanding, insofar as misconceptions must be unlearned. You really ought to go study up on how Bitcoin
actually works before you spout off. You dont even grasp the basics. You talk as if you learned all you know by reading /r/btc.
Edit: It's not worth my time to argue this with you. You clearly don't understand how Bitcoin or SPV wallets work. To my ignore list you go.
Nobody cares whether the transaction is valid, if it is included in the block chain of course !
WRONG. Invalid transactions do not exist in the blockchain, because they cause the containing block to be rejected as invalid.Thus highlighting the flaw in premise underlying this ramble of a disorganized thinker:
Nobody cares whether the transaction is valid, if it is included in the block chain of course ! The hypothesis of having to check whether transactions that are part of the SOLE current collective consensus might be "wrong" somehow, is making the hypothesis that bitcoin is entirely broken and that nobody gives a shit.
It would mean that miners have made a false block, that all other miners agreed to mine on top of that false block and then on top of that other block and so on. If a false transaction is deeply burried within the block chain, and miners are still mining on it, and no "clean prong" exists that doesn't include that block, then bitcoin is entirely broken. Because if that can happen, miners can just include ANYTHING. They can include erroneously signed transactions, they can include transactions of which the sum of the outputs is 500 times the sum of the inputs, they can include a coin base transaction that gives them 2000 BTC, they can include headers that don't correspond to the Merkle tree, they could include a porn movie, anything.
Moreover, there's not even another block chain in this world that is made correctly, because the massive amount of PoW that goes in this butched-up block chain cannot be re-done elsewhere. If the massive PoW voting power of the bitcoin miners collectively decide to make a butched-up block chain with false transactions in it, that's all there is to bitcoin, there is no clean version any more.
Yes, miner could fill a block with the output of /dev/random, if he wanted. However, he would only waste electricity on his own bill; for Joes [] running nodes in their basement (as
you like to deride nodes) would treat the block as if it were /dev/null.
There is
no voting on the Bitcoin network, not PoW voting and not otherwise. Nodes do not blindly follow the chain with highest POW; rather, they follow the chain which is
fully valid and independently validated by each of them and has the highest total POW.
Moreover, in what way would a full node be helpful here ? A full node would have stopped for good when the first false block was mined.
Wrong. The node will ignore the false block as if it had never existed.
Such is the power of nodes.
(Now, hows that for
conciseness?)