How do you not see that this is a problem with the Bitcoin protocol and not SatoshiDice?...The devs need to fix the protocol issue Yes, I agree that this is currently a vulnerability of Bitcoin and it most definitely needs to be resolved. A simple solution is not so apparent. You're quite well versed with Bitcoin intricacies, can you propose a solution? But in the meanwhile, wouldn't it be helpful for SatoshiDICE to cut down on the spam while we get this thing fixed? Just because Bitcoin has a weakness doesn't make it right to exploit it for personal gain.There's an ocean of difference between doing what's right for you, versus doing what's right. Unfortunately I am not well-versed in the technical intricacies of Bitcoin, and I'm not a programmer. I have huge respect for those who are, and thus I'm happy to contribute to their work by donating some money to assist them. If developers come to me and say they have a good solution, I'll fund it. Next, I'm not convinced that there even is a weakness. Bitcoin seems to be working beautifully, and already many are thinking about how to scale it even more. These are the growing pains of such a system, and is a sign of surging strength, not weakness. So I do not see that SD is "exploiting" anything... rather it's simply using Bitcoin, following the rules, paying more transactions fees than everyone else combined, and demonstrating to the world how awesome Bitcoin is for gambling. Yes, SD is profiting from this, but so is the Bitcoin system itself as adoption grows and these growing pains are worked out sooner rather than later. SatoshiDice is a spark which is driving interest from the entire gambling industry into Bitcoin. Certainly it puts stress on the system, but a system that's used is a system that's stressed, and the Bitcoin economy is far healthier for it. We cannot advance Bitcoin by asking anyone who is putting stress on the system to "please refrain." I do not think Bitcoin is so delicate and poorly constructed as you. It can handle SatoshiDice, it can handle far more than SatoshiDice, and I congratulate and encourage everyone else out there who is building infrastructure and putting stress on this system. |
|
|
|
...How about just not sending dust to notify losing bets?
That would reduce the SD transactions by about 25%. Will that satisfy you and solve the "problem"? Or will this discussion flare up again when SD grows by a subsequent 33% a month later? Again it's not the volume of transactions that is the sole problem, it's the unprunable and unspendable outputs that are sent for losing bets. They will be carried around in every copy of the block, in perpetuity, and can never be realistically spent (since it would cost more in fees than the actual amount). How do you not see that this is a problem with the Bitcoin protocol and not SatoshiDice?? You are focusing on a symptom instead of the disease. The analogy of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic is relevant. The devs need to fix the protocol issue, if there is one. I'm happy to donate funds from SD to assist the devs in this endeavor if that would be helpful. |
|
|
|
Let's say I shut down SatoshiDice tomorrow I think that's going a little too far. How about just not sending dust to notify losing bets? That would reduce the SD transactions by about 25%. Will that satisfy you and solve the "problem"? Or will this discussion flare up again when SD grows by a subsequent 33% a month later? |
|
|
|
I'll be talking Bitcoin on Peter Schiff Radio today (Friday March  at 11:05am EST. Host this week is not Peter himself but is Tom Woods of the Mises Institute, who is an absolutely awesome author and speaker. http://schiffradio.com/UPDATE: Here's the MP3 for download: [removed because it ran out of downloads]. You can get it at schiffradio.com - download from the home page. Bitcoin talk starts at 40:00 |
|
|
|
You are basically calling for censorship based on your personal preferences, disguising them under "common good" myth. This strategy is very dishonest and reminds me of shitload of propaganda that is poured on every single person all around the world for the last several thousand years.
If anywhere this should be solved at the protocol level, not at the social level. The bitcoin system should be completely agnostic about the intention of a transaction. All it should be concerned about is the total cost of a transaction, both to the miners and relay nodes.
If people start using patched clients to block transactions based on perceived intentions, we are going to get into a huge mess.
You guys have restored my faith in the forum community, very well said  |
|
|
|
* Put pressure on SatoshiDICE to stop the transaction spam. The principals involved in SatoshiDICE are Erik Voorhees,
If he can spam Bitcoin network that means its a vulnerability. Vulnerability that needs to be fixed. It is pointless to "put pressure" on anybody. On the contrary, its good that somebody shows us what needs to be improved. SatoshiDICE is not our enemy, just an opportunist using an opportunity. If ever governments decide that they don't like Bitcoin after all, SatoshiDICE will be the least of our problems. A real enemy like that will use any means possible (including spamming the network) to harm BTC. So perhaps let's grab this opportunity to harden the Bitcoin protocol instead of complaining. . . Pressuring SatoshiDice is a band-aid, not a solution. The Bitcoin system is supposed to work, we're not supposed to ask people to do us a favor and not use it. To solve the problem of unprunable small outputs, we need some form of output upkeep costs. +1 +1 This is so obvious I'm astounded that people keep parroting SD as a "problem." Let's say I shut down SatoshiDice tomorrow, has Bitcoin gotten stronger? More resilient? More impressive? More worthy of global commerce? Here's what would happen: 1) People would see that Bitcoin was so vulnerable that one of its leading advocates had to shut down one of the most profitable Bitcoin sites because the Bitcoin network "couldn't handle it." Perhaps it would make it into the press with the headline, "Bitcoin too weak to support one small gambling site" 2) Bitcoin's usefulness for mini- or micro-transactions, or even "numerous transactions" would be abolished. There'd be significant in-fighting over what constituted "microtransactions" and "transaction spam." 3) Any other person or company could and would create new services (like SD or totally different) that also creates many transactions. The "problem" would then be back, perhaps much bigger. Any "progress" gained by exiling SD would be very swiftly lost. But at least Luke-Jr, misterbigg, and their cohort of whining babies would be happy because they "saved Bitcoin"  |
|
|
|
Neither Roger Ver nor Jon Matonis are principles of SatoshiDice. |
|
|
|
I lost a lot of money today because of this shit. And I don't care for satoshi dice. Let them move to litecoin or ban them from spamming the network and my harddrives.
If bitcoin miners can't handle one high frequency gambling game, bitcoin is totally fucked. And you can thank Luke-Jr for turning the issue into a personal vendetta against SatoshiDice. And for the record, Luke-Jr has every right to not include SD transactions, if he wishes. That's his choice, as a free individual using this technology. I don't fault people for using Bitcoin in whatever way they choose. |
|
|
|
|
Yes it's true that SD could theoretically have a month of loss, and in fact I don't even think the odds are that bad. I would expect a month of loss at some point.
It is also possible that the house could go broke, but we've done significant work to make this extremely unlikely.
|
|
|
|
Systems operator?
Yes sorry I should explain this. I'm now paying for professional help in a couple areas for SD. The 100 btc is likely to be monthly. I also paid this past month for some extra security consulting, mainly around the double-spend issue. |
|
|
|
February Statement
The dividend for S.DICE has now been paid for February. Summary:Earnings: 13462.81849617 Hosting/Tech Expenses: 40 Security Consulting: 80 Systems operator: 100 Loss Carryover from Jan: 0 Net Profit 13242.81849617 13% MPEX Dividend 1721.5664045021 Volume over past month: 344,973.88 Actual Profit over past month: 13,242.82 Expected Profit over past month: 6,554.50 Updated P&L: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aiec3-Eo_yO5dHB2dVdiaEltUHAtTWlBcFhXQVBYeGc#gid=0The gambling industry will not be ignoring Bitcoin much longer, I assure you
|
|
|
|
There are 50,000,000 S.DICE shares on MPEx, and 37,000,000 of those are controlled by evoorhees.
When the dividend is paid, it will be in the sum of 6619 BTC, which will be divided into all 50 million shares (0.00013238 BTC per share).
I'm assuming that Erik stated 1721 BTC because he's only considering the 13,000,000 shares not held by him, however MPEx will still require him to actually pay 6619BTC to issue the dividend.
Yes Maximian is correct |
|
|
|
Dude, where the $$#$ is my dividend?
Good question! Sorry for the delay this month. I'm currently travelling with spotty internet access. I moved some funds into MPEX today and will be sending the dividend out within 24 hrs. Total dividend on mpex will be about 1721 BTC Thanks for your patience. |
|
|
|
Not sure if this had been posted yet (mod please delete if so). This is a video of our recent panel talk at Liberty Forum in New Hampshire (one of the Free State Project's two annual events). The Free Staters are heavily into Bitcoin now, I believe it's reached critical mass there. It's not a large group of people, but it's a core demographic and ideological ally. Enjoy! http://www.bitcoinmoney.com/post/44049245548/video-bitcoin-symposium-at-nh-liberty-forum-a |
|
|
|
I'm of the opinion that Bitcoin should be used as much as possible. It should be the monetary system of the world. And if the blockchain can't handle it, then the system needs to be upgraded or is doomed to failure because guess what,
Logical fallacy. That logic precludes incentives that encourage block chain efficiency. You cannot simply get stuck in the loop spam system -> demand system upgrades -> go to step 1 as that clearly lacks any amount of self-examination. The system needs to be able to handle 1000x as many transactions as it does today, else the whole project is silly. It does not matter what those transactions are for...whether financial, or informational, or experimental, or whatever. If Bitcoin can't handle far more volume that it does today, we should move on to something that can. SatoshiDice simply makes us face this issue sooner than we otherwise would. |
|
|
|
Sure, that's fine with me (though I bet not the State of New York)
What does the State of New York have to do with anything? This probably means that Luke-Jr had already reported you to the New York state crime autorities as somebody that runs a gambling racket. That's the "bet" in the original quote and it matches the modus operandi of Luke-Jr. Hehehe I wouldn't be surprised, he seems to be okay with using violence against peaceful people to get his way. Good thing neither SD nor myself are based in NY, or the US for that matter  |
|
|
|
Sure, that's fine with me (though I bet not the State of New York)
What does the State of New York have to do with anything? No. SatoshiDice violates the "no flooding" and "financial transactions only, no information" rules. Bitcoin's solution is to block flooders. Miners filtering out floods is part of the system.
Roughly 3/4 of SD transactions are financial transactions, and 1/4 is "information". Every inbound bet is a financial transaction, and roughly half of the outbound transactions are winnings going back to the user. When a user loses a bet, the response is indeed an "information transaction" and this seems to be what you are so upset about. So if SD played by the rules you wish to enforce upon it, 75% of the transactions would still be there. Also, where is this "no information" rule listed??? I was not aware that Bitcoin had a Terms of Service contract. But there is a far more important point to all this. Every transaction that occurs on the BTC network causes data to be stored in the blockchain. You, Luke-Jr, have sent transactions which cause blockchain bloat, you just haven't sent as many as SD. And if your transactions are "well and good" then how many do you need to send before you are considered "spamming"? Can SD only send 10 transactions a day before you get angry with it? Or 100? Or 10,000? Is it because they are "evil gambling transactions" which makes them less worthy than your own? I'm of the opinion that Bitcoin should be used as much as possible. It should be the monetary system of the world. And if the blockchain can't handle it, then the system needs to be upgraded or is doomed to failure because guess what, as Bitcoin grows, hundreds of creative systems are going to come out which use the blockchain in all sorts of strange ways. SD is but the tip of the iceberg. |
|
|
|
|
I don't think any discussion of Bitcoin development should be based on assumptions that it's important to listen to those with 56.6kbps modems. Bitcoin should not be designed around the lowest common denominator of technology, just to dictate that "everyone can run it."
It should be usable by most people, but there's no reason to get hung up about fringe use cases like 56.6 modems.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
