Two days ago Erik implemented a change which returns 0.5% on a losing bet. The significant benefit of this to Bitcoin is that unspendable bitdust utxo is nearly eliminated. Only bets of <=0.06 BTC create such outputs.
Do you have a reference for that? I must have missed it. I thought losing bets have always paid out half a percent. Here's what I think it probably my biggest ever losing SD bet: http://blockchain.info/tx-index/12114983I bet 6 BTC and got 0.03 back - that's 0.5%. Edit: my bad - I once lost 31 BTC and got 0.155 BTC back, but still it was 0.5%. So I guess I don't know what has changed... Thanks for keeping it up Dooglus, the charts and the level-headed responses. I sent a little bit your way again  Thank you very much.  Interesting! My mistake then. I took this at face value: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=150493.msg1603935#msg1603935because I kept seeing comments like this beforehand: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=150405.msg1601927#msg1601927There has been some SD change because those excellent violin plots show clearly that the min bet size increased 10x at the end of 2012. |
|
|
|
Can we make, at least, some kind of "dead puppies" alarm?
This is the situation. The alarm is sounding already! ...A transaction is considered DP involved if it pays to an identified DP address or if any of its inputs paid to an identified DP address.
Height Size Amount of DP-involved.
224737 163012 82.0755%
224736 498888 94.9111% (!)
224734 249140 93.4021%
224732 498991 85.5789%
224728 249091 80.2395%
...the supply of these transactions seems to be basically unbounded it seems likely that adjustments to block target sizes are unlikely to produce faster confirmations at this time. (my bold emphasis) The block 224736 is 1/2Mb, which is the biggest they get at the moment, and it is almost 95% full of SatoshiDice bets. This type of transaction source is indeed basically unbounded as the number of users it has is a tiny fraction of the potential audience. Further, an uptake of bot usage will alleviate the "bottleneck" of humans pushing a button, ensuring that bets can hit the blockchain at an ever increasing rate. We just had a monumental debate about the 1Mb max block size limit on this forum, and the significant reason for that debate is that it is a hard fork. Yet the growth of this type of transaction flow makes the hard fork almost inevitable in 2013 whereas it might not need doing until 2015 at the growth rate of all the non-SD business. Needless to say, a hard fork is best executed when everyone has the maximum time to upgrade at their own pace beforehand. I do not blame SD one iota as they are using functionality as it is presented. There is a weakness which Bitcoin has at present for "flooding" by legitimate fee-paying transactions. The answer is to slowly push back when the loading becomes excessive so that transaction sources have an incentive to optimize. Unfortunately, a number of people consider this to be the appropriate response:  |
|
|
|
Litecoin is used exactly for 1 thing, mining new litecoins to either sell them for bitcoins or dollars, or to hoard them (which is is highly questionable since it's a Tulip bubble).
... The whole LTC economy is based on people mining new LTC's, it's a dead end loop.
Yes. I came to the same conclusion too. The first-mover advantage in crypto-currency is absolutely critical. I just can't see mainstream sites offering >1 choices of crypto. The public would see it as a Sony/Betamax or Blu-Ray/HDDVD drama all over again and be annoyed about it. |
|
|
|
Holy crap dude...put something in your sig to indicate your nearly unbroken streak of incorrect calls.
Haha, yes. Being wrong so consistently is amazing, and you should certainly wear that badge of honor. I'm subscribed to his posts so I can sell all my BTC when he gets bullish. Good plan, and when he gets bearish after that we load up and make a killing! |
|
|
|
theirs a big knife coming i can feel it!
Last chance to sell above 20  Holy crap dude...put something in your sig to indicate your nearly unbroken streak of incorrect calls. If you're following your own advice you must eat a whole lot of ramen noodles. savin' typin' Edit: Just noticed, so got to have this on page 666  |
|
|
|
In any case, you can't make money if you don't risk any. So you know what to do...(build a time machine and go back to 2010. Buy 100,000 btc for 100 bucks or so, travel to 2018 and sell them for $100,000,000)
Proof that time travel will forever remain science fiction I am just amazed that working ASICs are made in China first! Is this also proof that the decline of the West has begun? |
|
|
|
|
dooglus, quick q if you would oblige...
Two days ago Erik implemented a change which returns 0.5% on a losing bet. The significant benefit of this to Bitcoin is that unspendable bitdust utxo is nearly eliminated. Only bets of <=0.06 BTC create such outputs.
For information can you advise what percentage of SD bets are 0.06 or less?
(the last two days is probably fine enough for a sampling).
Edit. Don't bother. I saw your file above and sampled that and about 54% of recent bets are 0.06 or less. Wow. Most of these are really small!
In any case, an fx rate of $200 will mean that all utxo since the change will be spendable. This is not a permanent problem then...
|
|
|
|
And they strongly imply that brute-force attacks against 256-bit keys will be infeasible until computers are built from something other than matter and occupy something other than space. LOL a threadkiller answer |
|
|
|
To be fair, it is paid for by fees which are bigger than all other sources combined, and will get bigger because of the 0.5% change. Which means it is not spam, but a type of high-volume flow which, arguably, Bitcoin is not ready for.
The current fees are there to deter flooding, not to justify it. Even with fees, transactions are still being mostly subsidized by miners. Last I heard the miners are being subsidized by the market assigning $1150 to the block reward, even if no transactions are included! Since "flooding" is being evidenced by "dead puppies" then one solution lies in this approach: For sources which exhibit dead puppy behavior the fee required for inclusion in a block needs to increase exponentially for each additional transaction Up front I will say this is a technical challenge, but not impossible, and there are some very capable people here who could take a shot at it. SatoshiDice needs to keep going so that when a change like above is made it will organically force a change in behavior (which will be SD internalizing or netting transaction flow). Then we can have some confidence that a recognized attack vector is blocked. |
|
|
|
What is the ECB? Is it European Central Bank?
yes. If so, is XBC an obsolete old code from back before Europe got assigned the EU country-code?
If XBC is actually a European Bond, how is that a world currency? Isn't a US Bond, a Bhutan bond, etc etc equally much a world wide currency? How come all countries don't get an X code for their bonds?
Is maybe XBC being wrongly squatted by the EU?
-MarkM-
I agree it is possible that XBC is "squatted" today, however bonds often have very long maturity dates and Bitcoin just can't wait years for existing issuance in these to hit expiry. A new X-code is the answer, with BTC retained for informal use. |
|
|
|
5000 satoshi is below the minimum tx fee for relay of non-aged coins so how could this be resolved? I think SD added this to work around psy's hack. Ok. I just checked on github and based on the latest revision dust is considered < 100,000 satoshi However, the fx rate is 3 times higher since that was decided, so 33,000 is a reasonable comparison now. So any SatoshiDice bet above 0.07 will not leave a dust amount for a loss. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2100 |
|
|
|
....
#2 is a disaster! This is what could "KILL" Bitcoin, because it disproportionately increases the initial and ongoing costs of mining! And it's not a storage issue. It's a CPU issue, because the bottleneck is in signature verification. Although it certainly increases storage costs (by a small amount).
ECONOMICALLY UNSPENDABLE OUTPUTS are the terminal problem. Not the transaction volume.
#2 was seemingly resolved/minimized... https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=150493.msg1604045#msg1604045I know that 5000 satoshi for the 0.01 bet size is marginal, but anything much larger becomes spendable, surely. |
|
|
|
|
To be fair, it is paid for by fees which are bigger than all other sources combined, and will get bigger because of the 0.5% change. Which means it is not spam, but a type of high-volume flow which, arguably, Bitcoin is not ready for.
|
|
|
|
but I do agree with his concerns about Bitcoin being abused as a messaging system and shotgunned with micro-transactions.
Let's remember that the small txs from SatoshiDice are only about 1/8th of all txs on the Bitcoin network (1/4th of SD-related txs, which are in turn 1/2 of the network, roughly). If SD stopped the loss-bet confirmation txs, you only reduce blockchain usage by 1/8th... and this amount will be re-added to the network within a month or two. It is a very silly distraction to get in a fuss about the loss-bet txs from SatoshiDice. OK, thanks for the further information, it is indeed reassuring! And in fact, it is now clear that SatoshiDice is not an imminent risk to Bitcoin because you are monitoring the situation and it is always under your control. The real risk lies in the sudden emergence of one or more of a special type of high volume application owned by people who will not make themselves known to the forum. We can call them Dead Puppy Apps, if i can borrow gmaxwell's terminology here. |
|
|
|
Sorry but thread title is misleading.
Right. There is an attack, but it's originating from the OP. +1 MisterBigg being more and more Ignored.. not surprising DoomDumas, you might not agree with misterbigg's unconventional cage-rattling approach but he does deserve to be heard. I disagree with him in a major way regarding the 1Mb limit, but I do agree with his concerns about Bitcoin being abused as a messaging system and shotgunned with micro-transactions. You had a good laugh about Mt Gox choking up earlier this week, as you use other exchanges, but what if Bitcoin itself chokes up? Are you going to laugh about that and load up on pre-mined Freicoin instead? I am still concerned because people are talking about using bots for SatoshiDice. This would seem a green light for high-volume traffic growth and Bitcoin seizures which would make Mt Gox's choke-up a pause for breath in comparison. |
|
|
|
I hope people make good and responsible use of it Hmm. In the thread title you advertise what I interpret you believe as an irresponsible use for it. How about some detail on how/when bitmessage accepts Bitcoin? |
|
|
|
How about we just use BTC until it's so commonly accepted that ISO just follows along?
This. Very this. ...it won't happen. BTC belongs to Bhutan. They have a minor currency unit beginning "C" so they are probably already using BTC internally in some of their systems!
Bitcoin needs a strategy to head off a future attack by central banks. Sticking with BTC as a first and last resort is like trying to swim the East River wearing concrete boots. It is not a smart strategy.
|
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure SatoshiDICE could run exactly as it is now without bloating the blockchain (and the the tens of thousands of harddrives that support bitcoin). But they choose not to run SatoshiDICE off-chain, for whatever reason.
It is a tragedy of the commons situation that SatoshiDICE has taken advantage of to 'profit' at the expense of storage space on other people's hard-drives (and now CPU cycles). Until fees become appreciable enough that the blockchain is no longer a common good but a commercial asset, anyone can CHOOSE to abuse the goodwill of others.
Would anyone tolerate a herd of grazing animals in Central Park NY?
I don't even know anyone who plays SatoshiDICE. I have a hunch it is some kind of contrived "stress-test" or bitcoin-shuffling operation where the majority of trades are actually automated. The size of the bitcoin user base is nowhere near big enough to support the volume of trades if they are being performed by individuals hitting buttons. I don't even think the $500K profit is real, it maybe just bitcoin that has been moved from one location to another, under the guise of "profit".
DYODD.
Sanity prevails on this thread, while insanity prevails on another... Looking for someone to write me a Satoshidice scripthttps://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=149496.0 |
|
|
|
SD has clearly established, through their refusal to stop attacking Bitcoin, that their intentions are bad - or at the very least indistinguishable from what someone with bad intentions would do.
No, there is no software bug. The bug is in the human component of the protocol.
This is such a terrible bullshit. Can you all please stop creating this bullshit and spreading FUD ? You simply don't get the point: If the HUMAN behavior is a problem which the network cannot solve itself using its own algorithms, then the network is useless and doomed to failure. There can be no such thing as human component-based bug in the protocol, because the protocol is designed to cope exactly with that. Bitcoin is still on very early stages. If BTC at this stage cannot cope with such a minor disturbance as SatoshiDICE currently is, then it cannot cope with reality at all and should be either fixed or redesigned from scratch. The point in short: The whole Bitcoin network exists exactly for the reason of coping with human imperfections (like forgery, double spending, thievery and other cons), so if it cannot do that, that means it is *completely useless*.Did i make myself clear this time ? +1 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
