|
|
|
|
|
by CookieMon
3678 days ago
|
|
Most of that is a strawman: wanting to grow the main chain is not the same as wanting every transaction in world on it. Pushing the spam limit back so far that it acts only as a spam limit again gives breathing room for various layer 2 technologies to develop, and relinquishes a tool used for central control of the economic activity. > cause Bitcoin P2P nodes to become confined to datacenters. Someone paid a Russian hacker to DDOS the Bitcoin Classic nodes, and what we learned from that was that the nodes in datacenters are the only ones which can't be trivially knocked off the internet. If you want resiliance, get nodes in as many datacenters of different sovereign jurisdictions as possible. The nodes running on home connections are an illusion. (at least until home internet connections come with DDOS mitigation tools) |
|
BTW, this too is a misconception: "and what we learned from that was that the nodes in datacenters are the only ones which can't be trivially knocked off the internet"
Right, because you didn't learn to run Tor hidden service nodes. You also didn't learn to proxy your connection over SSH. No, that would make too much sense. What you learned was that you had to physically relocate your node to a datacenter. Golf clap.
> If you want resiliance, get nodes in as many datacenters of different sovereign jurisdictions as possible. The nodes running on home connections are an illusion.
Welcome to 2013?
> Your suggestions don't stop the address published to the p2p network from being flooded.