Topic: Unlimited Block Size = Spam Attacks? (Read 141 times)

Thanks for sharing this, mate. Such a model would be the one to follow among Blockchains that aim to scale indefinitely like Bitcoin SV. Penalizing spam attacks would make the network more secure and resilient like never before. I believe that costs would rise within the Blockchain as the attacker tries to spam the network with thousands of transactions. In the end, it wouldn't be worth it at all to try to disrupt the Blockchain as it becomes too costly to do so.

I've never thought for once that Monero had such a model for scaling. Dynamic block sizes will allow the Blockchain network to adjust its capacity according to network load. With its penalty fee, spam attacks would be a thing of the past within XMR.

Now, the real deal would be with fee-less Blockchains like EOS and Steem as they would encourage spam attacks sooner or later. Without a proper penalty mechanism, these Blockchains would be rendered insecure and completely unstable as they become flooded with thousands of transactions made by a single attacker.

Nonetheless, it's interesting to see how the outcome of scaling massively for Bitcoin SV turns out in the future. If successful, then I believe that other altcoins will do the same. Otherwise, Bitcoin with its Lightning Network would become the norm for mainstream micropayments in the safest way possible.

Monero has dynamic blocks and has a penalty fee for spam. If you pay for it then its not spam, just expect to pay dynamically and exponentially for the privilege.

Craig Wright's (aka Faketoshi) infamous Bitcoin SV cryptocurrency aims to become the world's most scalable Blockchain by increasing its block size capacity towards unprecedented levels. Most recently, nChain announced that it will remove the block size limit, paving the way towards unlimited transaction capacity. We all know that's extremely dangerous for any Blockchain, since it will make the same extremely centralized.

Given that no one's virtually using the BSV blockchain, fees will remain as low as possible, while transactions will confirm quicker than both BTC and BCH. However, once people start to use BSV at a large scale, blocks would become filled in their entirety leading the network towards a massive increase in Blockchain size. With no block size limit, there's a possibility that someone could perform spam attacks greatly clogging the BSV blockchain. However, it might be unfeasible after all.

Nonetheless, any clarifications related to spam attacks would be greatly appreciated. I'm just trying to wrap my head up with all the possible risks related to an unlimited block size capacity. If spam attacks are feasible with an unlimited block size, then BSV would be rendered completely insecure while BTC will remain as the most solid cryptocurrency in the world.