Wont't P2P exchanges bloat the blockchain even more?
Nope, CounterParty (XCP) P2P DEX currently uses multisig transactions as a means of escrow, with advent of Bitcoin 0.9 it will transition seamlessly to implementing OP_RETURN which can be pruned But it will still be put onto the blockchain, a full node would still need it.
|
|
|
Wont't P2P exchanges bloat the blockchain even more?
|
|
|
There's nothing explicitly wrong with having 51% of the hashpower, you could use it to mine every block for the duration of your majority and that would be the end of it.
But, you could also use it to remine old blocks and mess with the transaction history and screw people over for the fun of it.
But at the most you'd have an advantage for just a little while, more miners would join and your majority would be removed.
|
|
|
A full node should be able to see every blockchain, sans the possibility of some MITM attacks.
What if the node is more like a 9/10ths node? If you don't download the full copy of the blockchain you're not considered a full node. In that case(you download just the block headers) you're susceptible to sybil attack by some entities controlling more than 50% of the hashpower feeding you the wrong chain. Is there any way to defend against a sybil attack if I don't download every transaction, I do have some transactions, but not all of them? How does a full node defend against an attacker with >50% of the hashpower?
|
|
|
A full node should be able to see every blockchain, sans the possibility of some MITM attacks.
What if the node is more like a 9/10ths node?
|
|
|
If you really believe it to be a problem, 2 of 3 transactions double the key requirement, meaning they'd have to get 2 instead of just 1 keys to spend anything.
|
|
|
Such as it was downloading the wrong chain, and suddenly the chain ends?
Like if 2-3 blocks back was suddenly marked as orphaned, how would the qt client understand this had happened?
|
|
|
Nodes? why would they?
Miners— well maybe some already are. How could you tell?
In case you had a legitimate reason to change the destination of your coins. I just think there should be an official feature of the protocol that breaks trust in unconfirmed txs. Because if mining nodes don't already behave this way, they most certainly will eventually. Better to ween the network off 0 confs early rather than later.
|
|
|
A merchant should not rely on unconfirmed transactions ever.
|
|
|
Miners should be viewed as profit driven entities.
They have a negative incentive to relay transactions, which means you can't depend on being peered with them to hear about transactions. A doublespend is as easy as sending one tx to the miner, and one to the merchant, the miner has no incentive to relay the transaction, so the merchant may never hear about it until it is in the blockchain, and they are out of a payment.
It is for this reason that it should be a standard to break trust in 0conf transactions, because eventually miners will stop relaying transactions so they alone are able to mine the fees.
|
|
|
We need to move away from the mindset that zero confirmation transactions are safe.
Miners will eventually start to prioritize what to include by the fee it gives them, which is exactly what they should be doing. Even if that were to nullify another unconfirmed transaction, the one which gives the most to the network (miners) is the one that should be included.
|
|
|
Since it's open source, if you believe that this is a better way to mine, you can go ahead and implement it. But keep in mind that when we hit dif 10 all 9 chains will become useless. So if I were you, I'd start producing 10 chains instead of 9 chains.
|
|
|
I thought it was inclusive?
|
|
|
How the hell are you gonna tell me I can't have a space in my password?
|
|
|
What incentive do people have to host this blockchain?
|
|
|
Why was it raised from 256kb (12.79GB per year max) to the current 1MB block limit at 51GB per year?
Only 4010 blocks have been over 256kb so far... And blocks are usually under 200kb.
|
|
|
It only becomes trivial to crack the equation when the same "random" number is used in subsequent transactions. Basically the same way they got into Sony's servers, it can, and has been executed on the Blockchain, a few months back some application was using the same random numbers in transactions and people were able to calculate the private key.
|
|
|
Just because it came first doesn't mean it is the best thing that can exist.
I personally feel that Bitcoin was never intended to survive, but merely start the creation of a better currency.
|
|
|
|