Full mode is a lot of work. You have to store all transactions in a database, load all the dependencies for each transaction, run the scripts, update the spent pointers and more.
There seems to be a lot of interest in making BitCoinJ a full Bitcoin implementation. But there's plenty of work to do on light mode before those two visions diverge.
Shortly after I wrote that I was reading the issue tracker and came across the discussion on the matter. I didn't realize storing transactions would be that difficult, but using a graph DB sounded interesting. |
|
|
|
BitcoinJ stores serialized StoredBlock objects to disk, without transaction data. The transactions are scanned and discarded in the ConnectBlock method.
Right, realisation dawns  , because it is purely for tracking your own transactions. The block chain headers are the only thing that is stored. When it starts up again, it just checks new blocks for references to those transactions. Yeah, that's right. I'm wondering if it wouldn't be that difficult to create a new block type (FullBlock?) and associated storage mechanism. Mike would know better than I, though, I'm only just starting to play with BitcoinSharp. |
|
|
|
On a recent PlanetMoney podcast, they hinted at an upcoming Bitcoin episode. |
|
|
|
You can't verify a transaction by merely checking the inputs are valid. It could be a double spend. The only way to prove it's not a double spend is to be aware of all transactions, so you can track which outputs are spent and which aren't.
If the node tells you which block has it, you could scan back to just that block, if it isn't to far. That could be practical for a lightweight client, if the transaction didn't occur to far back the chain. BitcoinJ stores serialized StoredBlock objects to disk, without transaction data. The transactions are scanned and discarded in the ConnectBlock method. |
|
|
|
This. Is. Awesome. Except, f lat money?!  |
|
|
|
I just wanted to dissect this a little bit. the online currency used to buy Alpaca wool socks and illegal drugs Among hundreds (thousands?) of other things. whose value dropped from $17.50 to “pennies” after a June 19 hack into its currency exchanger, Mt.Gox The value did not drop, just one of many exchange rates. It's also back up to $17.50 a week later. Solving that small change problem has made credit cards very popular since they made it much easier to buy and sell with precise amounts while cutting down on the transaction costs. Nevertheless, credit cards do cost consumers — in the form of fees, interest, and penalties — and merchants — as annoying merchant fees. Bitcoin might survive as a currency if it can find a way to make consumers and merchants better off. Maybe more precise pricing with fewer transaction costs? one lucky fellow paid $20,000 for Bitcoin in February 2010, only to turn around and sell his holdings in early June 2011 for about $3 million I call bullshit. Mann notes that Bitcoin’s ultimate ambition well might be illegal in any event. After all, he points out, there are federal statutes that make it illegal to produce a separate currency. Whether Bitcoin violates those statutes depends on how far it can go along the lines of becoming a true medium for exchange. This guy is so full of shit. likely to go the way of Flooz (bankrupt in August 2001) Oh noes! Bitcoin is going to go bankrupt! |
|
|
|
I've seen things get fractured like this before in other like minded anarchist underground communities, it creates an us versus them mentality against it's very own, which essentially destroys the entire community, partitioning it into very small stagnant circle jerks. I'm not surprised, as this is the logical conclusion of anarchist philosophy. I really doubt either of you have the slightest clue what "anarchist philosophy" actually is. |
|
|
|
I don't know how an Anarchist society is going to exist without a monopoly on force.
It can't. You can not reduce people to computers. This is what an equalization of coercive force implies. I think he's talking about socialist anarchism, where private property is not allowed. A monopoly on force is not necessary or beneficial just like a monopoly on food is not necessary or beneficial. here's where you are misunderstanding Socialist Anarchism. It's an Anarchy, nothing is "not allowed" private property just doesn't exist without a monopoly of force to protect it. it's a philosophical difference, not a practical one. Sorry, that was worded poorly. Most of the socialist anarchists I've spoken with advocate the use of force in order to prevent ownership of private property, rather than say, just boycotting the property owner. Such use of force is akin to a state, from my point of view. I can use my own hands in order to defend my property (means of production), or pay someone else to do it for me. It's only a monopoly on force if there is a single entity that may legitimately use force. Do you mean that as a property owner, I have a monopoly on force? If so, that seems like a rather self referential definition of property and monopoly, though I can see how it could seem to be state-like from your perspective. Do you think that an individual has the right to use force in the defense of his possessions from others? What about property? What about both of those, but a group instead of an individual? |
|
|
|
If we resort to assassination markets, are not just warring statist? Governments and the rich already have the means to assassinate people. Assassination markets would just even the playing field. IMO. |
|
|
|
Also good to know this is the only bug. How do you infer this from the available information? |
|
|
|
I don't know how an Anarchist society is going to exist without a monopoly on force.
It can't. You can not reduce people to computers. This is what an equalization of coercive force implies. I think he's talking about socialist anarchism, where private property is not allowed. A monopoly on force is not necessary or beneficial just like a monopoly on food is not necessary or beneficial. |
|
|
|
 I guess the state has a monopoly on all liberty-oriented figures now. That's exactly what got him in trouble for counterfeiting. Too cute by a half.  Agreed that is mighty similar, but when was the last time those were minted? |
|
|
|
get rich quick without risk or hard work. Above market returns Are any of the exchanges claiming this? Perhaps Bitcoin7 and TradeHill with their referral schemes? Techno-babble is designed to intimidate you into not looking behind the facade. Bitcoin is based on cryptography. It's quite technical. I don't see any exchanges using additional techno-babble. technological breakthroughs Bitcoin is a technological breakthrough. What does this have to do with exchanges? inadequate disclosures Fair point. However, to some people, the disclosures are adequate, and thus they keep using certain exchanges. non-traditional payment choices Bitcoin is a non-traditional payment choice. encouraging you to invest based on trust What else is there??? All investment accounts should be registered separately in your name with an independent, third-party custodian, and all transactions in your investment accounts should be fully visible to you on a daily basis either through independent account statements or the custodian's web site. Avoid commingled, pooled funds where the manager has custody and possession and/or account activity statements are generated only by the manager and not by an independent third-party. What? I don't see what this has to do with Bitcoin, since it's not an investment. Exchanges also aren't investments, they are exchanges. |
|
|
|
in an Anarchist society of any sort there is no central authority to tax and redistribute production, so the AnCaps would not be taxed and redistributed.
in an AnSyn society if people really wished to be exploited by a capitalist they would be free to do so, meanwhile in AnCap society the resources are all already "owned" so formation of a syndicalist commune is not really possible.
I don't expect society as a whole to be syndicalist or capitalist in nature, I just hope or it to be Anarchist and allow the capitalists, syndicalists and other sorts to form their own smaler soceities within the larger framework.
I appreciate this point of view and hope that there are more Anarchists that share it than one would infer from reading http://reddit.com/r/anarchism I label myself a voluntaryist now, as both anarchist and capitalist have too much emotional baggage. I think that given an anarchist environment, many varied methods of meeting human demands will flourish. Perhaps one will be shown through practice to be vastly superior to all others and voluntarily adopted by a majority, but I doubt it will be the case as long as we have differing goals and values. In a fairly short period of time I transitioned from a political apathist, to self identified liberal (valued social over economic freedom), to a minarchist (realizing that economic freedom was just important), to an anarchist (realizing that over a long enough period of time, governments cannot in theory or practice protect freedom). |
|
|
|
I'm not complaining. But this is exactly the kind of demeaning comment I was talking about. Do you always have to end every post with an insult to someone? Seriously? All you've been doing is complaining about people shitting on this idea. Some ideas deserve to be shit upon. If you can't handle that, it's not my fault. There are people who like to improve the game rather than just run away and play their own game. Look at the responses in the thread. Very few people want this "feature". Thus, it is not an improvement from the perspective of the current user base. The only rational thing to do, if you (not you, ascent) continue to insist that this is valid fix for an actual problem, is to implement it yourself and show people that it works. Then I respectfully invite you to not participate in this thread anymore. Seriously, it's not doing any good. And for the record, while I agree with ascent's assessment of the problem, I also believe that it is not likely to be an issue for a long, long time and am personally in no hurry to see any solution applied at the moment. Yeah, I'm done. I can only say so many times in so many ways that I really don't think you will find support for this idea, and if you really want it done, do it yourself. Too bad I can't hide this thread from my "unread replies" page. |
|
|
|
I'm not going to play guessing games regarding the future of Bitcoin. It is however a fact that as the value of something increases, the effort that goes into protecting that thing increases.
Actually, as has been stated, for the value to increase, it will require wider adoption. Wider adoption means the value is spread among more users. And the key point here is: when you have 1 million users who possess a digital file that contains 100x where x is valued at y, or 100 million users who possess a digital file that contains 1x where x is valued at 100y, you still have the same total value per user, and thus, rationally, each user applies the same measures to safeguard it, regardless of the value of a single unit. Honestly, is that your argument? That the increased value of Bitcoins will result in an overall increased effort to safeguard it? Distribution of bitcoins is not homogeneous. That is your first invalid assumption. Some people will have a lot of coins and will in all likelyhood be willing to spend some of it to create additional security infrastructure for Bitcoin. I can't imagine any security infrastructure good only for those with lots of bitcoins, or any benefit to them for keeping it to themselves. Especially since greater security could lead to greater adoption and a higher price. Yes, that is my argument. What is your aversion to creating a fork with your changes? |
|
|
|
Why are you so adamant that this be incorporated into Bitcoin, rather than a block chain of your own design?
It's pretty obvious that few people (if any) other than you and bji want this "feature".
I think a better dialog would ensue if you would describe what you think is the most likely scenario for Bitcoins in the future. This would include your best guess of their future valuation, and the reasons for your estimated future valuation. As a defender of Bitcoins, you can then justify its current design as much as you want. What? No. Everybody who bought, mined, or sold for Bitcoins did so because they liked the way it works. You want to change the way it works. If you're so sure that your guess (and that's all it is) is correct, then why not start a competing block chain with the rules you describe? Actions speak louder than words. I'm not going to play guessing games regarding the future of Bitcoin. It is however a fact that as the value of something increases, the effort that goes into protecting that thing increases. |
|
|
|
|
Why are you so adamant that this be incorporated into Bitcoin, rather than a block chain of your own design?
It's pretty obvious that few people (if any) other than you and bji want this "feature".
|
|
|
|
Um, wouldn't creating a fork of the client and/or blockchain and see if the people use it exactly BE shoehorning this fix into Bitcoin?
Or do you think that Bitcoin is just the prototype client that everyone has been using? No, it wouldn't. Shoehorning the "fix" into Bitcoin would be lobbying for it's inclusion into Bitcoin. If you really think it's such a good idea, then create an alternate version of the client with the change. If people think it's a good idea, they will use that instead. That might not be such a great idea due to the possibility of forking the block chain, so maybe you want to create an alternate block chain instead with this and possibly other rule changes, and see how it fares in competition with Bitcoin. The code is open source, quit complaining and start coding. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
