Bitcoin Forum
May 01, 2016, 09:17:00 PM *
News: New! Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.12.1 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 [35] 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 ... 970 »
681  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 09, 2015, 03:59:27 AM
all the yearly silver and mining stocks have that sick top left to bottom right chart configuration. this is a horrible leading indicator for both gold and stocks:

silver futures:



SLW:



PAAS:



silverbox's GPL:

682  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 09, 2015, 02:55:42 AM
I just want to highlight the comments here from bitcoin-dev today, which seem to indicate that these spamming attacks would have been 5.5x more expensive if a dust threshold software change had not been made. Perhaps there are deeper insights someone else has on this...?

Quote
16:53   wangchun   why can those spam get confirmed. 0.00001 BTC vout below dust threshold right?
16:54   phantomcircuit   wangchun, iirc the dust threshold is 546 satoshis
16:54   wangchun   not 5460 satoshis? changed?
16:54   aschildbach   wangchun: Yes it was cut by 10 a few months ago.

i don't think it really matters, does it?

since most of the mined blocks are filled with real demand trying to get into blocks with or without spamming, the only difference being that with spamming the real demand has to pay significantly higher fees to get in, the cost to fill up the rest of the block with spam is minimal as is the minimal cost to bloat the mempool to extraordinary levels (94K 0confs as i write).  i say minimal cost for the mempool b/c most of it gets turned over after 24h deletion allowing that spam to be recycled w/o having to pay.
683  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 09, 2015, 02:12:12 AM
The point I'm trying to make is that if CreateNewBlock is super-linear in mempool size, then it would not be surprising to see more empty blocks (what Cypher was calling "defensive blocks") when mempool swells (the miners are mining on an empty block for longer while waiting for CreateNewBlock to finish).  This was Cypher's point from the very beginning that many people, including myself, were suggesting was probably not the case!  

that is exactly what i was saying w/o knowing anything about CNB.  it was just intuitive that constructing a new block would take longer for a large mempool so i deduced that a miner might decide "f*ck it" that he doesn't want to not only spend additional time validating a large incoming block but also not want to spend additional time creating a large new block so instead just automatically switch to 0 block mining upon arrival of a large block.  the thing none of us anticipated was that he would not validate that incoming large block at all and switch to SPV mining while >50% of the network would also be SPV mining (Discus, Antpool, BTCGuild) and trigger an invalid SPV longest chain.

that's some wild shit going on.

given this newly recognized scenario, i still conclude however that this is all a result of the block size limit being hit continuously by attacking spammers and secondarily intentionally causing a bloated mempool which then causes these unanticipated defensive strategies and more intentionally, user disruption.
684  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 08, 2015, 08:08:33 PM
the ongoing spam shows clearly that all full nodes are handling the traffic just fine. We were told that they would crash and burn from overloaded memory if we were foolhardy enough to implement Gavin's arbitrary, rushed, poorly-researched plan for 20MB blocks.

^Fixted for you.

The real shame is that they've been forced to do ask the validation and store it in mempool waiting for blocks that never come because of the 1MB cap. What a waste but it shows that the capacity of the network is far higher than we've been told.

If you look at the stream  of full blocks going by, to me I see miners begging to be able to process bigger blocks to clear their mempools. That would force the spammers losses and eventually kill him. 

Mempool is full of tx waiting to be (slowly, thanks to completely unoptimized Createnewblock) processed into new blocks.

The blocks are then propagated (slowly thanks to limited/expensive upstream bandwidth), and (eventually, thanks to slow ECDSA and quadratic scaling) validated by the receivers.

Validation is not done in mempool, as gmax and others have tried to explain to you, without success and at the cost of your remaining credibility.


The network will upgrade as a result of new user growth that the spammer can no longer disrupt. Meanwhile, the spammer gets taken out to the wood shed and gets raped. She won't be coming back.

The network does not distinguish between new users and old users.  More users will include more spammers.

Wow, you've really gone off the deep end today.  Consider a vacation, or therapy.  It's not healthy for a man of your considerable age/education/income/stature to talk like a poorly disciplined young teen on their X-Box Halo chat.



All that slowness you're referring to results in the spam being deleted after 24 hours allowing recycling of the fees while still disrupting usage.
685  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 08, 2015, 07:37:49 PM
Whole network must upgrade. So spammer spend $1200 but bitcoin network 10x more on upgrade,

You must have quoted my post before I updated it with the new table to estimate the cost to the network that you were referring.  I think "10x more" is an overstatement.  It still looks like it costs the spammer more than the network as a whole [blue column] if we write the spam to the blockchain, even though I think the relevant cost is the cost per node:



Spammer only spends money 1x during lifetime, but miner has to keep bigger disk-space forever (2 hard disc consume more electricity than single one)

So what, without a cap miner will get paid to do it. And profit and get stronger which is the last thing the spammer wants especially since he can no longer disrupt the user growth which will, in the meantime, lead to squaring of the networks value (price) according to Metcalfe Law.
686  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 08, 2015, 07:30:38 PM
Why would the cost to a particular node depend on the number of nodes?

lol, do we have single centralized server ?

We don't.
But why should a single node owner pay for the storage used by every other node in the network, instead of bearing just its share ?
Because that's what it looks you're implying...




Whole network must upgrade. So spammer spend $1200 but bitcoin network 10x more on upgrade,

The network will upgrade as a result of new user growth that the spammer can no longer disrupt. Meanwhile, the spammer gets taken out to the wood shed and gets raped. She won't be coming back.
687  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 08, 2015, 07:26:12 PM
A block cap doesn't discourage spam; it encourages it. That's because not only is it a target to cause congestion but the attacker knows he can congest nodes that process the spam immediately upon receipt and then store it in memory waiting for a block that never comes. Since unconfirmed TX's get deleted from mempool after 24 hours, the spam costs him nothing while at the same time disrupting user experience and growth.

What a deal. 
688  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 08, 2015, 07:12:30 PM
Spam tx's are by definition economic transactions someone finds inappropriate, and individual judgments calls are not part of the protocol, that's bitcoin

Miners can choose what to include in the blocks they build.

anyway to say 6 years after bitcoin has grown that storing transactions and blocks for ever should change is not keeping with the idea that is Bitcoin.  

OK. I'm not sure anyone suggested otherwise.

Don't forget that with pruning you'll be able to trim your node if you want while turning the full validation over to specialized nodes.

I think bandwidth is a bigger issue than storage costs. Pruning does nothing for bandwidth.

Yes, but the ongoing spam shows clearly that all full nodes are handling the traffic just fine. We were told that they would crash and burn from overloaded memory. Not true.

The real shame is that they've been forced to do ask the validation and store it in mempool waiting for blocks that never come because of the 1MB cap. What a waste but it shows that the capacity of the network is far higher than we've been told.

If you look at the stream  of full blocks going by, to me I see miners begging to be able to process bigger blocks to clear their mempools. That would force the spammers losses and eventually kill him. 
689  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 08, 2015, 06:39:33 PM
Spam tx's are by definition economic transactions someone finds inappropriate, and individual judgments calls are not part of the protocol, that's bitcoin

Miners can choose what to include in the blocks they build.

anyway to say 6 years after bitcoin has grown that storing transactions and blocks for ever should change is not keeping with the idea that is Bitcoin.  

OK. I'm not sure anyone suggested otherwise.

Don't forget that with pruning you'll be able to trim your node if you want while turning the full validation over to specialized nodes.
690  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 08, 2015, 06:16:13 PM
#Chinameltdown  The end of Chinese false economic prosperity (Austrian perspective)

#EconomicCrisisIsOver  US Mint Runs Out Of Silver On Same Day Price Of Silver Plunges To 2015 Lows


The 'spam issue' in Bitcoin will never be fixed (as you define it) because demand for space in the Mother of all Blockchains will always exceed supply.

Soon, wallets will support dynamic intelli-fees and fancy RBF whatnot.

In the mean time, pay 25 cents or a dollar for higher verification priority if you don't want your tx stuck.

If that's too much money for some broke cheapskates, fuck'em.  They aren't bringing "economic activity" (beyond subsidized freeloading) to Bitcoin in the first place.

Quote
@pierre_rochard

Those who would give up essential Decentralization, to purchase a little temporary Adoption, deserve neither Decentralization nor Adoption.


Quoting Rochard is the worst thing you could do besides flapping your own lips.
691  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 08, 2015, 06:14:10 PM
It really behooves everyone to read and carefully digest the principles in this thread:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3chtdp/the_blocksize_cap_is_basically_worthless_for/
692  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 08, 2015, 06:07:42 PM
look at this.  80K unconf tx's and 6.76TPS and yet gmax et al says there's no problem.  all that wasted computational work done by full nodes for blocks that will never clear those unconf tx's.  i told you long ago these guys will never even be able to recognize a problem even when it's staring them in the face and even after it's beat them over the head:

So the fix is to happily write these 80k spam transactions into the permanent ledger that we (full nodes) have to keep a copy of forever?

Yes, initially.

After some volatility and after the spammers figure out they can't jack the mempool anymore the attacks should stop.

someone did a calculation:

For example, with 100mb blocks, forcing average transaction fees up to only $0.06 over the course of a year would genuinely cost an attacker over $1billion.

Did he calculate how much will cost memory to keep this spam ?

Your missing the point that the spammer wouldn't even try it at that cost.

If your calculation is right then using 1 mb block he has to pay $10 million per year.  (and $100M if we rise fee to $0.6)

No, the damage to the user base in that scenario will kill user growth which is the one thing that will cause value to square over time.
693  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 08, 2015, 06:05:07 PM
...  the above graph i just put up shows tremendous stress on Bitcoin usage by new and existing users.  what's ironic is that the continuous stream of full blocks is a reflection of miners begging for bigger blocks so that they can chew through that mempool in an instant.  ...

It is spam attack and with 8MB block it will be worse.

Quote from: Rusty Russell
... if blocks were 8MB: an 8MB transaction with 22,500 inputs and 3.95MB of outputs takes over 11 minutes to hash ....
worse for the attacker who would be paying 8 x in fees. miners can upgrade there CPU's if they are having problems collecting the fees.

That's why there should be no limit at which a spammer can aim for. He'd be shooting in the dark in a futile attempt to jack the mempool all the while losing money to miners who will clear his spam immediately until he capitulates from huge losses never to return.
694  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 08, 2015, 06:01:27 PM
Gavin is right about one thing however.  The sky will not fall because of full blocks.

Now please return to the normal Chicken Little routine.  It would be so quite in here without your panicked squawking.   Wink

you have no idea what a true fee mkt is.  it's not what we're getting now.  the above graph i just put up shows tremendous stress on Bitcoin usage by new and existing users.  what's ironic is that the continuous stream of full blocks is a reflection of miners begging for bigger blocks so that they can chew through that mempool in an instant.  that "clearing" of the mempool would enforce losses on the spammer.  right now, they can just recycle their spam as it gets deleted every 24 h while still causing damage to the user experience. 

get your head out of your ass.

Oh, touchy touchy!  You really don't like it when I use facts, logic, and humor to highlight the contradictions and unsupported assertions in your worldview.   Smiley

How precisely does increasing the minimum fee from ~2 to ~5 cents "damage to the user experience?"

Can you explain that as easily as I can explain how undercharging for use of an incredibly valuable service, which consumes ~1.5 days worth of an avg US home's electricity, damages the long term signalling/incentive structures of the system?

Through lost economic activity from repeated stuck TX's. Users will just quit.

There are people from Greece on reddit who say they won't participate in Bitcoin until the spam issue is fixed.
695  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 08, 2015, 05:58:39 PM
look at this.  80K unconf tx's and 6.76TPS and yet gmax et al says there's no problem.  all that wasted computational work done by full nodes for blocks that will never clear those unconf tx's.  i told you long ago these guys will never even be able to recognize a problem even when it's staring them in the face and even after it's beat them over the head:

So the fix is to happily write these 80k spam transactions into the permanent ledger that we (full nodes) have to keep a copy of forever?

Yes, initially.

After some volatility and after the spammers figure out they can't jack the mempool anymore the attacks should stop.

someone did a calculation:

For example, with 100mb blocks, forcing average transaction fees up to only $0.06 over the course of a year would genuinely cost an attacker over $1billion.

Did he calculate how much will cost memory to keep this spam ?

Your missing the point that the spammer wouldn't even try it at that cost.
696  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 08, 2015, 05:52:11 PM
look at this.  80K unconf tx's and 6.76TPS and yet gmax et al says there's no problem.  all that wasted computational work done by full nodes for blocks that will never clear those unconf tx's.  i told you long ago these guys will never even be able to recognize a problem even when it's staring them in the face and even after it's beat them over the head:

So the fix is to happily write these 80k spam transactions into the permanent ledger that we (full nodes) have to keep a copy of forever?

Yes, initially.

After some volatility and after the spammers figure out they can't jack the mempool anymore the attacks should stop.

someone did a calculation:

For example, with 100mb blocks, forcing average transaction fees up to only $0.06 over the course of a year would genuinely cost an attacker over $1billion.
697  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 08, 2015, 05:48:37 PM
look at this.  80K unconf tx's and 6.76TPS and yet gmax et al says there's no problem.  all that wasted computational work done by full nodes for blocks that will never clear those unconf tx's.  i told you long ago these guys will never even be able to recognize a problem even when it's staring them in the face and even after it's beat them over the head:

So the fix is to happily write these 80k spam transactions into the permanent ledger that we (full nodes) have to keep a copy of forever?

Yes, initially.

After some volatility and after the spammers figure out they can't jack the mempool anymore the attacks should stop.
698  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 08, 2015, 05:17:29 PM
What contagion?  Everything is fine!



just b/c he could get that wrong doesn't mean his entire thesis is wrong.  plus, he's got me as a counter balance. Grin

Getting that key premise wrong does in fact mean his entire consequent thesis is wrong.  EG:
Quote
I think we're about to see an explosion of bandwidth to the home, because the ongoing financial crisis will get much worse and big companies are investing in infrastructure again. And people LOVE streaming video....

^That^ doesn't make sense.  QED, Gavin explicitly and inseparably tied larger block feasibility to the supposed end of the financial crisis and subsequent future infrastructure investment.

Gavin is right about one thing however.  The sky will not fall because of full blocks.

Now please return to the normal Chicken Little routine.  It would be so quite in here without your panicked squawking.   Wink

you have no idea what a true fee mkt is.  it's not what we're getting now.  the above graph i just put up shows tremendous stress on Bitcoin usage by new and existing users.  what's ironic is that the continuous stream of full blocks is a reflection of miners begging for bigger blocks so that they can chew through that mempool in an instant.  that "clearing" of the mempool would enforce losses on the spammer.  right now, they can just recycle their spam as it gets deleted every 24 h while still causing damage to the user experience. 

get your head out of your ass.
699  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 08, 2015, 04:58:29 PM
look at this.  80K unconf tx's and 6.76TPS and yet gmax et al says there's no problem.  all that wasted computational work done by full nodes for blocks that will never clear those unconf tx's.  i told you long ago these guys will never even be able to recognize a problem even when it's staring them in the face and even after it's beat them over the head:

700  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 08, 2015, 04:45:07 PM
No really guys there's no contagion.........from Greece  Cheesy

EDIT: very promising that BTC remains independent

EDIT2: front page marketwatch lol: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/greeces-disease-wont-infect-healthy-european-countries-2015-07-08

What contagion?  Everything is fine!





just b/c he could get that wrong doesn't mean his entire thesis is wrong.  plus, he's got me as a counter balance. Grin
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 [35] 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 ... 970 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!