Bitcoin Forum
May 10, 2024, 04:24:59 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1]
1  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: require a TX-level PoW nonce to inhibit spam? on: January 03, 2018, 01:42:32 PM
Batch payment is a more responsible way for service to manage payments and it should not be discouraged. By trying to penalise spammers, you are also penalising various services.

That is exactly the best argument against myself which I could come up with before posting.

I'm trying to think of how some of the ideas from more recent crypto developments (e.g. Iota, RaiBlocks) could be incorporated into bitcoin to improve upon bitcoin, but maybe that is what achow101 was referring to by 'Bitcoin's design and security model'.
2  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: require a TX-level PoW nonce to inhibit spam? on: January 03, 2018, 07:26:55 AM
It wouldn't work. If the PoW for transactions was SHA256d, you could just buy an ASIC and spam transactions. If it were something else, you can use GPUs and it would be just as effective. Making the difficulty adjust to transaction size would be completely pointless since spam transactions are typically not large. Furthermore, you couldn't just make it based on the person who is sending it since Bitcoin does not use an accounts based system. It is difficult (nearly impossible) to know whether two transactions were created by the same person, so you can't make the difficulty adjust to the person. So this idea of adding a PoW to each transaction is pointless and wouldn't reduce anything, at least with Bitcoin's design and security model.

Do I understand correctly that you mean spam transactions no longer exist in the mempool as they once did to crowd the bottom of the TX fee levels, and that the occasional surges in unconfirmed TX seen in the mempool over the last 12 months are all 'end user' transactions?

I'm not proposing that individual people would have to submit PoW, but instead that individual transactions would. Thus, a single transaction with many hundreds of outputs or inputs would require a relatively large PoW, but a transaction where the entire balance of one address is transferred to another address would not. (This has been my working definition of spam: transactions of the former type rather than the latter.)
3  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / require a TX-level PoW nonce to inhibit spam? on: January 03, 2018, 02:32:41 AM
Sorry if this is something that has been discussed ad nauseum already. I'm mostly seeking to get informed myself here.

IIRC, bitcoin implemented a block size limit because of spam transactions. It seems to me like this is a little backwards, creating a bottleneck for legitimate transactions while allowing spam creation to continue unabated. I'm wondering if there's a way to create a bottleneck at the point of transaction creation to limit the appearance of spam in the first place. I think this was done with email to limited effect in the past.

My thinking is that there could be a PoW requirement built into the transaction itself, like the byte-size of the transaction sets a difficulty and the transaction must include a nonce which hashes the entire transaction to some result below some threshold.

I'm already accustomed to waiting a few seconds every time I swipe/insert my credit card into a point-of-sale terminal, so adding a short PoW requirement there seems reasonable to me, but maybe this wouldn't be enough to reduce/eliminate TX spam?

All thoughts(/criticisms) welcomed! :-)
Pages: [1]
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!