Quote from: tvbcof on November 20, 2014, 04:23:51 AM

Looks to me like he was just smoothing over some ruffled feathers since someone happened to notice his 1MB protocol setting. Clever guy was the ol' Satosh.

Thought you might discount such clear evidence.

Theymos had this interpretation:

Quote from: theymos on November 21, 2010, 01:18:52 AM

The main reason for the block size limit is disk space. At 1MB, an attacker can force every generator to permanently store 53GB per year. At 10MB, an attacker can force every generator to permanently store 526GB per year....

Caveden said this:

Quote from: caveden on November 20, 2010, 01:19:29 PM

Only recently I learned about this block size limit.

I understand not putting any limit might allow flooding. On the other hand, the smaller your block, the faster it will propagate to network (I suppose.. or is there "I've got a block!" sort of message sent before the entire content of the block?), so miners do have an interest on not producing large blocks.

I'm very uncomfortable with this block size limit rule. This is a "protocol-rule" (not a "client-rule"), what makes it almost impossible to change once you have enough different softwares running the protocol. Take SMTP as an example... it's unchangeable.

I think we should schedule a large increase in the block size limit right now while the protocol rules are easier to change. Maybe even schedule an infinite series of increases, as we can't really predict how many transactions there will be 50 years from now.

Honestly, I'd like to get rid of such rule. I find it dangerous. But I can't think of an easy way to stop flooding without it, though.

(my bold emphasis in both quotes)

It's a sure bet that these guys are smart enough to know what Satoshi was thinking.