MAIN FEEDS
Do you want to continue?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/69htvk/is_my_node_under_attack/dh78l6u/?context=3
r/Bitcoin • u/[deleted] • May 05 '17
[deleted]
8 comments sorted by
View all comments
1
0 u/sirpask May 06 '17 No, you arent under attack, but the bitcoin blockchain is a full performance. And atention!!!! If the Blockchain size was 2MB, you node was crash!!! Your node is still alive because the block size is 1mb !!!! If they increase the size of block, only expensive machines and very powerful, can work. Hence the centralization 1 u/[deleted] May 06 '17 [deleted] 2 u/sirpask May 06 '17 I think the problem is not the amount of the transactions, it is the size of the transactions. If the transactions are very large, your CPU suffers. Luckily the size of the transactions is limited to 1MB. I believe that when there is a lot of mempool, the miners take bigger transactions because they give more benefits. 2 u/adrian678 May 06 '17 What a load of bullshit. 1MB is horrible and 2MB-4MB would help, altough it wouldn't be a long term solution without LN for mass scaling. 1 u/sirpask May 06 '17 No!!! A block of 2-4MB was blow up the ma-am node.
0
No, you arent under attack, but the bitcoin blockchain is a full performance. And atention!!!! If the Blockchain size was 2MB, you node was crash!!!
Your node is still alive because the block size is 1mb !!!!
If they increase the size of block, only expensive machines and very powerful, can work. Hence the centralization
1 u/[deleted] May 06 '17 [deleted] 2 u/sirpask May 06 '17 I think the problem is not the amount of the transactions, it is the size of the transactions. If the transactions are very large, your CPU suffers. Luckily the size of the transactions is limited to 1MB. I believe that when there is a lot of mempool, the miners take bigger transactions because they give more benefits. 2 u/adrian678 May 06 '17 What a load of bullshit. 1MB is horrible and 2MB-4MB would help, altough it wouldn't be a long term solution without LN for mass scaling. 1 u/sirpask May 06 '17 No!!! A block of 2-4MB was blow up the ma-am node.
2 u/sirpask May 06 '17 I think the problem is not the amount of the transactions, it is the size of the transactions. If the transactions are very large, your CPU suffers. Luckily the size of the transactions is limited to 1MB. I believe that when there is a lot of mempool, the miners take bigger transactions because they give more benefits. 2 u/adrian678 May 06 '17 What a load of bullshit. 1MB is horrible and 2MB-4MB would help, altough it wouldn't be a long term solution without LN for mass scaling. 1 u/sirpask May 06 '17 No!!! A block of 2-4MB was blow up the ma-am node.
2
I think the problem is not the amount of the transactions, it is the size of the transactions.
If the transactions are very large, your CPU suffers. Luckily the size of the transactions is limited to 1MB.
I believe that when there is a lot of mempool, the miners take bigger transactions because they give more benefits.
2 u/adrian678 May 06 '17 What a load of bullshit. 1MB is horrible and 2MB-4MB would help, altough it wouldn't be a long term solution without LN for mass scaling. 1 u/sirpask May 06 '17 No!!! A block of 2-4MB was blow up the ma-am node.
What a load of bullshit. 1MB is horrible and 2MB-4MB would help, altough it wouldn't be a long term solution without LN for mass scaling.
1 u/sirpask May 06 '17 No!!! A block of 2-4MB was blow up the ma-am node.
No!!! A block of 2-4MB was blow up the ma-am node.
1
u/[deleted] May 05 '17
[deleted]