Finney Attack against SatoshiDice or how to get 250 BTC per solved block.

[TraderTimm]

Satoshi Dice is a perfect example of "Tragedy of the Commons".

Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

They know using the blockchain as a signaling device is causing other effects, but they could care less.

[justusranvier]

Nobody is forced to mine Satoshi Dice transaction. Miners can set any fee policy they want for transactions to and from those addresses. If it is causing so much damage they could just refuse to mine those transactional at all and make Satoshi Dice either pay more or mine directly.

[2112]

Erik & fireduck,

you should just offer a private betting addresses for your most demanding clientele. Basically have them login to your website and reserve a private set of betting addresses. Require a deposit, eg. 1BTC. From then on a private bet of 1.01BTC would mean than 0.01BTC is in the play and 1BTC is a conduit that you'll always return, both with the won bets and with the lost bets. A kind of a "refundable door charge." A sort of a thing that all decent casionos demand: evening attire. The casino will not strip the players from their clothes, even if they "lost their shirt" inside.

Good luck to everyone.

[2112]

Sure, that's fine with me (though I bet not the State of New York)

What does the State of New York have to do with anything?

This probably means that Luke-Jr had already reported you to the New York state crime autorities as somebody that runs a gambling racket. That's the "bet" in the original quote and it matches the modus operandi of Luke-Jr.

[TraderTimm]

Nobody is forced to mine Satoshi Dice transaction. Miners can set any fee policy they want for transactions to and from those addresses. If it is causing so much damage they could just refuse to mine those transactional at all and make Satoshi Dice either pay more or mine directly.

So it makes more sense to integrate policy into all the mining nodes versus a single actor changing their behavior?

Mind boggling...

[justusranvier]

So it makes more sense to integrate policy into all the mining nodes versus a single actor changing their behavior?

I don't see where I said it was better to do it that way than for Satoshi Dice to change.

If Satoshi Dice is not willing to change that would be the best way to go. If they aren't willing to be reasonable then I don't understand why miners would just complain publicly instead of doing something about it. They aren't helpless. They have options other than complaining.

[evoorhees]

Sure, that's fine with me (though I bet not the State of New York)

What does the State of New York have to do with anything?

This probably means that Luke-Jr had already reported you to the New York state crime autorities as somebody that runs a gambling racket. That's the "bet" in the original quote and it matches the modus operandi of Luke-Jr.

Hehehe I wouldn't be surprised, he seems to be okay with using violence against peaceful people to get his way. Good thing neither SD nor myself are based in NY, or the US for that matter

[jgarzik]

Nobody is forced to mine Satoshi Dice transaction. Miners can set any fee policy they want for transactions to and from those addresses. If it is causing so much damage they could just refuse to mine those transactional at all and make Satoshi Dice either pay more or mine directly.

Miners (and the network) will not see the impact as long as the block reward far exceeds other network costs, like unspent transaction output set (UTXO) storage.

[Sergio_Demian_Lerner]

We should consider the solution using CoVar I proposed. It hurts no one, and it helps a lot with SD.

[fornit]

imagine you have a guy who would shoot people for parking violations.
then imagine you put him in a room with a guy who would park a tank in front of a hospital emergency entrance if they forget to put up a sign.

my guess: this is bound to be a long, fruitful discussion 

[evoorhees]

I'm of the opinion that Bitcoin should be used as much as possible. It should be the monetary system of the world. And if the blockchain can't handle it, then the system needs to be upgraded or is doomed to failure because guess what,

Logical fallacy.  That logic precludes incentives that encourage block chain efficiency.

You cannot simply get stuck in the loop

     spam system -> demand system upgrades -> go to step 1

as that clearly lacks any amount of self-examination.

The system needs to be able to handle 1000x as many transactions as it does today, else the whole project is silly.

It does not matter what those transactions are for...whether financial, or informational, or experimental, or whatever. If Bitcoin can't handle far more volume that it does today, we should move on to something that can. SatoshiDice simply makes us face this issue sooner than we otherwise would.

[2112]

The system needs to be able to handle 1000x as many transactions as it does today, else the whole project is silly.

Why call it silly? It is just a divergence of goals.

a) You belong to a group who wants Bitcoin to become a censorship-resistant Internet transaction media.

b) Core development team wants Bitcoin to become a value-preserving investment vehicle.

Group a) benefits from rapid evolution and good integration with the existing systems of electronic commerce.

Group b) benefits from paranoidal level of conservatism and avoidance of hard forks at all possible costs.

Is there a way to somehow unify those goals?

Maybe fund a stipend for grau and his bitsofproof? I think his code and his development style would be a good counter-balance to the obsesive conservatism of Gavin Andresen. Nobody in the core development team has any meaningful experience in development of transactional financial software.

[jgarzik]

The system needs to be able to handle 1000x as many transactions as it does today, else the whole project is silly.

Prunable, spendable transactions, sure.

1/4 of SatoshiDICE's output is not that.

[Come-from-Beyond]

The system needs to be able to handle 1000x as many transactions as it does today, else the whole project is silly.

Prunable, spendable transactions, sure.

Shouldn't we just admit that Bitcoin has failed and move on to Bitcoin 2.0?

[markm]

Maybe the high volume of fast transactions folk should be looking to litecoin, not bitcoin.

Litecoin already has four times as much blockchain space for transactions per ten minute period, and it has faster confirmation too. It might also be more open to hard forks.

term store of value folk can stick with bitcoin, and litecoin can be used more for the kind of stuff it was intended for.

Win-win. Well except for me, as I didn't get to stockpile millions of litecoins. But apart from that it sounds good.

-MarkM-

[mistfpga]

Satoshi Dice is a perfect example of "Tragedy of the Commons".

Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

They know using the blockchain as a signaling device is causing other effects, but they could care less.

If you can use wikipedia, I can use urban dictionary.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=I%20could%20care%20less

The phrase is "I could NOT care less" meaning that I care so little there is no way for me to care any less.

Why do people not understand this... sigh.

(this is nothing personal - lots of spoons on this board make that mistake)

toodles.

(and no, I dont know why sdice shit on the block chain - and I do care that they shit on the chain, I wish they would stop. But that means they would have to have the skills to implement a better solution.)

[2112]

Maybe the high volume of fast transactions folk should be looking to litecoin, not bitcoin.

It is simply not a good use of the available investment funds. Bitcoin has already significant costs sunk in. Expending a one-two man-years of a developer knowledgeable in finance, databases & middleware is just money better spent.

(and no, I dont know why sdice shit on the block chain - and I do care that they shit on the chain, I wish they would stop. But that means they would have to have the skills to implement a better solution.)

The coins are already half-way minted. Now the business question is:

a) do you want them tarnished (not necessarily with shit ) in a circulation?

b) do you want to wrap each one in a plastic display wrapper and hope they rise in value? I mean Satoshi Nakamoto is like Salvador Dali, he isn't minting anymore like Salvador Dali isn't signing any canvases, even blank.

[spiccioli]

IMHO,

first step could be for SD to use compressed keys... you still have 1/4th of informational transactions, but at least they use less space.

spiccioli

[Rygon]

I agree with the lead developers: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

The bitcoin network is working fine for the majority of users, even those who want to partake in activities that some people frown upon, such as gambling on the blockchain. We aren't having issues with miners not including transactions, or insisting on fees that folks aren't willing to pay, we're not getting close to the blockchain limits, etc. I'd rather wait to see if these things even become a problem, and how they are manifested. We're arguing over things that might happen years (not months) from now, there is no pressing need to change the code now, imo.

[Come-from-Beyond]

People, if u r unable to resolve the SD issue how the hell r u going to withstand pressure of the state? :facepalm: