Should the bitcoin community ban the Satoshi Dice filter patch?

[Rothgar]

This is a strange question.  It's not possible to ban such a patch. 

[fancy_pants]

This is a strange question.  It's not possible to ban such a patch.  

Well it looks like they just banned it now didn't they?  (I actually don't know what they banned, but there's some talk in the internet rooms about patched code)

[BadBear]

People can do what they want, their reasons are their own.

[whitenight639]

A better way of handling this would be to implement a better pruning system.

It is precisely because no solution to the pruning problem exists for this form of transaction spam that we need a way to address it.

Is this because of the small amounts? or some other technical reason?


Can we not find a way to make there trasactions prunable?

To be honest SD using 70% of the blockchain is ridiculous, im all libertarian and freemarket n shit but if a service is using 70% of the blcokchain slowing everyone elses shit down AND they are making transactions that will never be prunable its got to change, espeicially if the majority of bitcoiners feel the same way.   

[justusranvier]

Mining pool operators could make it economical to collect those unprunable outputs tomorrow if they wanted to, with no changes needed to the protocol.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=150726.0

[solex]

Mining pool operators could make it economical to collect those unprunable outputs tomorrow if they wanted to, with no changes needed to the protocol.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=150726.0

I am coming to the conclusion that this business is like herding cats

[Raoul Duke]

Isn't it good when people rush to "fix" things and fork the chain because of it?

Bitcoin doesnt need fixing. Satoshidice on the other hand...
They are now also responsible for a fork on the chain, like the spam wasn't enough.

[BitcoinAshley]

I missed the part where it is actually possible to enforce a ban on transaction spam filters.

The best you can do about it is whine and whine on the forums and hopefully some miners agree with you and don't use it.

I agree that it doesn't have to be SD specific; it could simply filter out spammy dustcoins with no tx fee.

[nelisky]

They are now also responsible for a fork on the chain, like the spam wasn't enough.

I usually steer clear of these particular trains of thought, but you do understand SD wasn't responsible, right? A bug in the BDB code caused this, and yes, SD did trigger the bug but while it was a nuisance to be very mild (I lost almost 4 hours of what was otherwise already too little sleep for this), it does mean some big enterprise (read government) that happens to find this bug can't create havoc and properly abuse this situation with properly prepared double spends and the like.

Honestly, I strongly believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion, mine isn't better than yours outside my own system of values but this community should keep together a little better and your constant calling wolf isn't helping, in my opinion... it is just my opinion! I don't really care too much what other people think anyway, unless I perceive a chance of learning from them.

[nelisky]

I agree that it doesn't have to be SD specific; it could simply filter out spammy dustcoins with no tx fee.

I believe SD sends dustcoins WITH proper tx fees. SD is paying the vast majority of fees now included in blocks, and has been for a while.

[Raoul Duke]

They are now also responsible for a fork on the chain, like the spam wasn't enough.

I usually steer clear of these particular trains of thought, but you do understand SD wasn't responsible, right? A bug in the BDB code caused this, and yes, SD did trigger the bug but while it was a nuisance to be very mild (I lost almost 4 hours of what was otherwise already too little sleep for this), it does mean some big enterprise (read government) that happens to find this bug can't create havoc and properly abuse this situation with properly prepared double spends and the like.

Honestly, I strongly believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion, mine isn't better than yours outside my own system of values but this community should keep together a little better and your constant calling wolf isn't helping, in my opinion... it is just my opinion! I don't really care too much what other people think anyway, unless I perceive a chance of learning from them.

In fact SD didn't trigger the bug.
The devs rushing to "fix" things which could be "fixed" by SD changing it's ways instead of "fixed" on the network level was the trigger.

[jgarzik]

I agree that it doesn't have to be SD specific; it could simply filter out spammy dustcoins with no tx fee.

I believe SD sends dustcoins WITH proper tx fees. SD is paying the vast majority of fees now included in blocks, and has been for a while.

This is entirely irrelevant when the fees are miniscule, compared to the block reward subsidy.

The cost of all those unspent outputs created by SD, for lost bets, impacts all bitcoin users.

[nelisky]

I agree that it doesn't have to be SD specific; it could simply filter out spammy dustcoins with no tx fee.

I believe SD sends dustcoins WITH proper tx fees. SD is paying the vast majority of fees now included in blocks, and has been for a while.

This is entirely irrelevant when the fees are miniscule, compared to the block reward subsidy.

The cost of all those unspent outputs created by SD, for lost bets, impacts all bitcoin users.

I am not defending nor attacking SD, and as I'm running a competitor (which is obviously a drop of water in the ocean, or a 1 satoshi tx in a large block compared to SD).

And the point that SD's stressing of the network is a great future proofing test has been made as many times as the SD is evil one. I don't understand why SD hasn't change its behaviour towards the problem but then again that hasn't reduced the amount of users they get, and thus the market has spoken. I would most certainly like to see a better fee equalization algorithm implemented, and would be glad to help achieve it, but it feels to me that most everyone chooses a side and points the finger, spending way too much time repeating "'coz I said so".

[solex]

They are now also responsible for a fork on the chain, like the spam wasn't enough.

I usually steer clear of these particular trains of thought, but you do understand SD wasn't responsible, right? A bug in the BDB code caused this, and yes, SD did trigger the bug but while it was a nuisance to be very mild (I lost almost 4 hours of what was otherwise already too little sleep for this), it does mean some big enterprise (read government) that happens to find this bug can't create havoc and properly abuse this situation with properly prepared double spends and the like.

Honestly, I strongly believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion, mine isn't better than yours outside my own system of values but this community should keep together a little better and your constant calling wolf isn't helping, in my opinion... it is just my opinion! I don't really care too much what other people think anyway, unless I perceive a chance of learning from them.

In fact SD didn't trigger the bug.
The devs rushing to "fix" things which could be "fixed" by SD changing it's ways instead of "fixed" on the network level was the trigger.

+1

[Raoul Duke]

They are now also responsible for a fork on the chain, like the spam wasn't enough.

I usually steer clear of these particular trains of thought, but you do understand SD wasn't responsible, right? A bug in the BDB code caused this, and yes, SD did trigger the bug but while it was a nuisance to be very mild (I lost almost 4 hours of what was otherwise already too little sleep for this), it does mean some big enterprise (read government) that happens to find this bug can't create havoc and properly abuse this situation with properly prepared double spends and the like.

Honestly, I strongly believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion, mine isn't better than yours outside my own system of values but this community should keep together a little better and your constant calling wolf isn't helping, in my opinion... it is just my opinion! I don't really care too much what other people think anyway, unless I perceive a chance of learning from them.

In fact SD didn't trigger the bug.
The devs rushing to "fix" things which could be "fixed" by SD changing it's ways instead of "fixed" on the network level was the trigger.

+1

Stop +1'ing my posts.
Don't you know there's possibly nothing you can learn from them?

[nelisky]

Stop +1'ing my posts.
Don't you know there's possibly nothing you can learn from them?

Touché... nothing like having good arguments to assert a point.

[Raoul Duke]

Stop +1'ing my posts.
Don't you know there's possibly nothing you can learn from them?

Touché... nothing like having good arguments to assert a point.

kabong...

[Luke-Jr]

If anything, we should be banning miners who refuse to do reasonable filtering like this.

[nelisky]

If anything, we should be banning miners who refuse to do reasonable filtering like this.

Banning is such a strong word, though. If a majority of miners would in fact refuse such transactions other smaller miners would start getting a lot of orphans and would be forced to either reduce their blocksize drastically or starts filtering out what goes in to their mined blocks. But that's only if the majority of miners sees that as a good thing for the network and their bottom line, no?

I mean, one of the most beautiful things about bitcoins, and one of the most criticized features of it at the same time is the lack of an appointed central authority, but majority still rules the chain.

[Luke-Jr]

If anything, we should be banning miners who refuse to do reasonable filtering like this.

Banning is such a strong word, though. If a majority of miners would in fact refuse such transactions other smaller miners would start getting a lot of orphans and would be forced to either reduce their blocksize drastically or starts filtering out what goes in to their mined blocks. But that's only if the majority of miners sees that as a good thing for the network and their bottom line, no?

If miners refuse to do their job in filtering, there's no reason to leave it up to miners.
Regular participating nodes can refuse to relay blocks with (eg) more than 50% Dice spam.