If it currently costs a few thousand $ to clog up the blockchain, even increasing it 20 fold wouldn't stop someone with deep pockets.
A work around needs to be found, not just a simple block size increase (though that should happen too)
Indeed. A simple fee increase is not a solution, as it would be discouraging bitcoin use long before it could discourage someone with deep pockets. What sort of transaction censoring are you contemplating now? |
|
|
|
I think one possible solution would be to have a temporary high transaction fee during times where there are a lot of transactions to be processed. Something similar to the concept of surge pricing. It's not elegant or desirable, but it could work.
This is what has always been the case, with no change to the protocol. You can always pay a higher fee. And yes, the feature of wallets telling you what fee to use would be a nice addition. |
|
|
|
i said years ago that high tx costs, like we're starting to get now, will drive all these op_return companies away from Bitcoin. and it will be the fault of guys like iCEBlow, tvbcof, & the BS core devs. there will be repercussions:
What high TX costs? Its up a little, but still less than everything comparable (if anything is). Miner revenue is up lately. Using only slightly higher than default fee, your TX gets processed without delay. The spammer had gotten his feet up to. 0002 earlier but it may have gone back down to. 0001. Yes not much for you or me but maybe not so for 3rd world. Yes, it's mostly an unusability issue. But still, Nasdaq is not going to get aggressive until a solution to the spam occurs. Sure, in Venezuela where a month's labor at minimum wage under 33% monthly inflation is less than US$20 at black market exchange rates, such a fee becomes almost meaningful... The largest bank note in Venezuela is worth about 16 cents currently.  But even (maybe especially) there the fee is affordable if you want to do a sure transaction with new coins. |
|
|
|
|
Historically DoS attacks have coincided with volatility.
Also be on the lookout for some fake bad news.
|
|
|
|
The fees must go up or some measure to kill spamers.
Larger blocks does not prevent spammers.....
The fundamental premise here (that all attacks need a response) is entirely flawed. To accept it is to surrender completely to the will of every would-be attacker that can force a response. If you want your TX processed swiftly, raise your fee. You can fix this yourself, it needn't be something you ask ANYONE else to handle for you. Exchanges often have a fixed default fee that you cannot change. Implementing your suggestion would require all exchanges and Bitcoin services to update their platforms to allow customers to set their own rate of transaction fees. Ideally they should also warn if the network is under attack and suggest an appropriate fee. It would take some time to get them all to agree to update, but it's possible. What exchange do you use that has a fixed TX fee? Don't use that one. For the exchange: Any decent exchange will have the ability to set the fee, though it may be an "advanced" option. If they do not do this, they have the burden themselves as part of the service to include an appropriate fee. Badly coded exchanges fixing poor interfaces should happen long before protocol changes. This is not the crisis you are thinking it is. |
|
|
|
I don't think spammers are a problem,if there are larger blocks,what does spammers matter?
It will fill my hard disk faster and sooner. Another issue with spam is the UXTO set, which can grow quite large and create problems of its own. |
|
|
|
i said years ago that high tx costs, like we're starting to get now, will drive all these op_return companies away from Bitcoin. and it will be the fault of guys like iCEBlow, tvbcof, & the BS core devs. there will be repercussions:
What high TX costs? Its up a little, but still less than everything comparable (if anything is). Miner revenue is up lately. Using only slightly higher than default fee, your TX gets processed without delay. |
|
|
|
The fees must go up or some measure to kill spamers.
Larger blocks does not prevent spammers.....
The fundamental premise here (that all attacks need a response) is entirely flawed. To accept it is to surrender completely to the will of every would-be attacker that can force a response. If you want your TX processed swiftly, raise your fee. You can fix this yourself, it needn't be something you ask ANYONE else to handle for you. |
|
|
|
But your being politically correct and non confrontational by leaving out one major factor that is driving the debate under the hood. And that is Blockstream. They, like Bitcoin, are also about money. Except I'd argue, by crippling Bitcoin, they are about USD's. The conflict of interest is a real concern, to be sure, but at this point I think it more likely that they are sincere. At least Greg, because he's always been a bit of a pessimist on Bitcoin scalability as a whole, being so code-focused, it really is quite consistent for him to side with Blockstream. Adam I suspect a bit more, since missing out on Bitcoin and all the financial gains despite having created part of it has to hurt, but I'm not at all willing to assume bad faith on his part either. At this point it's basically a social club for their point of view, and I do think the money influence will be corrupting as time wears on, but I'm skeptical that it's having a substantial effect yet. I In any case, the main point is that it could be but we simply can't know. We can suspect, and it is probably good to needle them about it, but actually jumping to that conclusion as a decided fact doesn't seem helpful to me. The conflict of interest is a simple matter of the facts. Whether it is problematic to the point of whether any recusal is warranted is another matter entirely. Likely its sufficient to examine on an issue by issue basis. |
|
|
|
|
It is only slightly less stupid. It should not pass.
|
|
|
|
scaling blocks would be the perfect solution. but that's an infinite discussion.  One cannot address a crapflood attack by permantly accepting more crap for all time. This is where the "Bitcoin Purists" need to admit they were wrong that "there can only be one crypto" and give credit where credit is due. Charlie (coblee) was right from 3 years ago when this spam attack happened. I remember the spam attack when it happened and the fee structure to discourage attacks has worked very nicely to date.
Are you talking about when he stopped ignoring my advice that his slavish copying of Bitcoin's code broke the existing anti-attack mechenisms and rendered them completely and totally ineffectial?-- and applied a patch I provided? I'm surprised you'd forget that-- because Go actually look at the litecoin repository. You'll see almost nothing but miles of them copying code from Bitcoin Core. As mentioned above... We have almost the same protection in Bitcoin being mentioned here; but the attacker is just paying enough to avoid it (partially because it was subsiquently turned too low in anticipation of higher Bitcoin prices); and the latest volly of attack transactions don't even involve very small payments. I realize that you're a long time litecoin advocate; but seriously-- pick a argument that actually makes sense. Otherwise it's just embarassing. I traced the attacks to my alt-coin mining operation last year to Panama and Switzerland, they went to a lot of trouble to screw me out of $5 worth of doge.
Any idea where these attacks are originating from?
A big chunk of them originate from this transaction: 3bad15167c60de483cd32cb990d1e46f0a0d8ab380e3fc1cace01afc9c1bb5af if you can figure out whos exchange withdraw this-- since this key immediately began making the attack txn itself is you may have some very concrete evidence about whos attacking here. The problem you get when you fix something, those without comprehension will blame you for the problem. "If you could fix it than it is your fault for not doing it earlier" "Why did you break it in the first place" Engineering is all about the careful and cautious trade-offs. Perfect solutions are elusive, but when you come up with one, after the fact folks will claim it to have been obvious, and so not meaningful. -unsung heroes |
|
|
|
Crap, I wish I knew about this earlier. I dont come to the legal forums very often. This is total B.S. So what if I trade on a foreign exchange? Does this mean that I have to use Tor now for everything? I hope not because it is very slow to load anything. Thanks for posting this and I wish I could have gone. I guess I have some reading to do.
Edit: OK so it is not as bad as I thought:
"(c) “Virtual currency business” means the conduct of either of the following types of activities involving a California resident:
(1) Storing, holding, or maintaining custody or control of virtual currency on behalf of others.
(2) Providing conversion or exchange services of fiat currency into virtual currency or the conversion or exchange of virtual currency into fiat currency or other value, or the conversion or exchange of one form of virtual currency into another form of virtual currency."
So basically it looks like they want to ban California based exchanges. I have no idea why they would not want to tax this stuff, but whatever.
The wording seems vague and difficult to interpret, but the way I read it you can still run a business such as selling stuff online for bitcoins, you just can't run a wallet or exchange. Is that right? Are there any lawyers here to interpret this?
So in other words, if I want to sell 50$ of bitcoins on LBC, then I need a 5000$ license? This is horrible. I have to read more on this but I hope it is not the case. They obviously want to kill bitcoins here. Its not law yet, but the lobbiests are begging that "something be done" after all "think of the children!" |
|
|
|
(My style has been to make public rather than private communication but I am not in the loop concerning this one.)
I hope I'm not being annoying But you should talk to him about that since making new public updates will bring exposure and new investors No, you should talk to him. Never institute centralization in communication unless necessary  ADD: I mean, there is enough job for me to be lead designer, the GM and the King. It is Riccardo's job to be the one responsible for communicating how the Version 4 is proceeding. There is no need for me to carry messages between you two, as he is reading his PM daily. ^^ this Why do a man in the middle attack on yourself. If you want the straight information, go straight to the information. Don't delegate up, it doesn't help you. |
|
|
|
We are also using SHA-256 and RIPEMD-160 hashes to protect our balances. So even ECDSA is broken our balances can be safe and then ECDSA replaced.
Pray tell how you will replace ECDSA when the coins are already assigned to keys for it? (and when everyone and their sister constantly reuses addresses). A compromise of CT would mean that it was feasible to find discrete logs in this group, with that, anyone who learned your public key could recover your private key. There are scenarios where the hashing, absent any address reuse, helps (e.g. say the discrete log finding takes weeks)-- but it's important to not exaggerate the gains.But indeed it isn't the ~quite~ same. It's perfectly possible to construct schemes for private values which are unconditionally sound; meaning that there is no cryptographic assumption behind their inflation resistance, and a cryptographic break would only result in a loss of privacy. I had previously thought that it was necessarily the case that any such scheme would have to be less efficient; but I have since realized my original reasoning for that was incorrect; though I do not (yet) know of a way to construct an unconditionally sound scheme which is anywhere near as efficient as CT; but finding one is on my TODO list (though it falls below other improvements for CT privacy and network security that I'm working on). I do not know :-), but maybe in case that ECDSA is broken we can split transacion into 2 part. 1. broadcast transaction without public key (I do not know how to prevent from spaming) 2. and then confirm transaction by broadcasting public key few blocks later. Consider also whether this is a fundamental justification for the development of side chains. A break in ECDSA (or even a perceived break) could instigate migrations to secured chains for resilience. |
|
|
|
... - Then we have tvbcof, who is an avowed socialist.
Where? Seems like a hard money dude from what I've read. Jefferson was philosophically opposed to slavery (supposedly) but he was a slave owner. The inexorable dilemma. To win the game, or to change the game? Sometimes it takes a bit of one to do the other, until the other manifests its opportunity. Shades of grey. |
|
|
|
buy & hodl or die.  ! The classic pterodactyl pattern. JOUST TIME |
|
|
|
another person who sees problems with block size voting. i haven't analyzed the attack; just posting here from bitcoin-dev: On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 8:05 PM, William Madden <will.madden@novauri.com> wrote:
Here are refutations of the approach in BIP-100 here:
http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf
To recap BIP-100:
1) Hard form to remove static 1MB block size limit
2) Add new floating block size limit set to 1MB
3) Historical 32MB message limit remains
4) Hard form on testnet 9/1/2015
5) Hard form on main 1/11/2016
6) 1MB limit changed via one-way lock in upgrade with a 12,000 block
threshold by 90% of blocks
7) Limit increase or decrease may not exceed 2x in any one step
 Miners vote by encoding 'BV'+BlockSizeRequestValue into coinbase
scriptSig, e.g. "/BV8000000/" to vote for 8M.
9) Votes are evaluated by dropping bottom 20% and top 20%, and then the
most common floor (minimum) is chosen.
8MB limits doubling just under every 2 years makes a static value grow
in a predictable manner.
BIP-100 makes a static value grow (or more importantly potentially
shrink) in an unpredictable manner based on voting mechanics that are
untested in this capacity in the bitcoin network. Introducing a highly
variable and untested dynamic into an already complex system is
unnecessarily risky.
For example, the largely arbitrary voting rules listed in 9 above can be
gamed. If I control pools or have affiliates involved in pools that
mine slightly more than 20% of blocks, I could wait until block sizes
are 10MB, and then suddenly vote "/BV5000000/" for 20% of blocks and
"/BV5000001/" for the remaining 10%. If others don't consistently vote
for the same "/BV#/" value, vote too consistently and have their value
thrown out as the top 20%, I could win the resize to half capacity
"/BV5000001/" because it was the lowest repeated value not in the bottom
20%.
I could use this to force an exodus to my sidechain/alt coin, or to
choke out the bitcoin network. A first improvement would be to only let
BIP-100 raise the cap and not lower it, but if I can think of a
vulnerability off the top of my head, there will be others on the other
side of the equation that have not been thought of. Why bother
introducing a rube goldberg machine like voting when a simple 8mb cap
with predictable growth gets the job done, potentially permanently?
Is it meant to be humorous that voting is described as arbitrary when compared to a single person picking a number out of his head? |
|
|
|
These videos make me truly sad sometimes, because its clear we live in a prison planet, engineered to control us, its not even about money, as they can print it at will, its about power, and to control energy sources is to control modern society and us. I hope truly disruptive crypto like Monero will balance things more to our side. Its the only with significant chances so far. If Bitcoin is disruptive, Monero is disruptive on steroids. It is practically subversive and seditious. |
|
|
|
There are other threads on this topic here already. Why pollute this one?  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
