Bitcoin Forum
July 29, 2021, 06:39:56 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.21.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [All]
  Print  
Author Topic: Economically Unspendable Outputs: A Problem On The Radar  (Read 16348 times)
misterbigg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064
Merit: 1001



View Profile
March 08, 2013, 06:54:56 AM
Last edit: March 12, 2013, 03:51:03 AM by misterbigg
 #1

"Transaction spam" is the largest issue threatening the fledgeling currency called Bitcoin. A brief synopsis of the problem:

"SatoshiDICE" notifies gambling addicts of losing bets by sending them a transaction containing 1 satoshi back to their original address. A regular transaction fee is also included in this transaction. The problem is that this produces an unspendable and unprunable output. The output is unspendable because it is so small that it would cost more in fees than it would to send. It cannot be pruned because it has to stay around in fast storage to detect double spends, even though ironically it cannot be spent (developers, let me know if this description is technically accurate).

The immense volume of SatoshiDICE transactions crowds out regular transactions, driving up fees for normal users. This would almost be okay if SatoshiDICE was bringing in new users to Bitcoin in proportion to its increased transaction volume. But most of these transactions come from automated bots running 24/7 spending tiny amounts of Bitcoin. Miners have a love and hate relationship with this transaction spam. They love the fees, but hate that they need to store every one of these transactions on the hard drive, FOREVER. They cannot be pruned since they are unspent outputs. But what's the real problem?

The problem is that SatoshiDICE is taking advantage of the early stage of Bitcoin, at a time when transaction volume is too low to fill the blocks and bring fees up to a level that would make up for the drop in subsidy. If Bitcoin was fully mature, it will not be vulnerable to this type of transaction spam and no one would be talking about it let alone suggest patches, because fees would make the dust spam economically unviable.

We do not have a mature network, and we're in the bootstrapping phase. SatoshiDICE is consuming the "startup capital" (current state of low fees, high subsidy, and lots of free space in blocks) to profit without bringing a corresponding increase in growth of Bitcoin adoption. The simple fact is that a relatively small handful of gambling addicts and bots are flooding the block chain with 70%+ of its transactions.

What can you do to help?

* Put pressure on SatoshiDICE to stop the transaction spam. The principals involved in SatoshiDICE are Erik Voorhees, Roger Ver, and Jon Matonis (board member and secretary of the Bitcoin Foundation. See a conflict of interest?

* Show your support in asking the MPOE exchange where the S.DICE security is located, to de-list the security until the problem is addressed.

* Appeal to the S.DICE shareholders to pressure MPOE to de-list S.DICE.

* Ask BlockChain.info to remove the playable direct links to SatoshiDICE from it's wallet service as a courtesy to the network

* Vote Jon Matonis off the board of the Bitcoin Foundation at the next election.

* Apply suggested patches and updates to your client or mining software to protect the network.

With your help and the rest of the community we can work together to see Bitcoin through this fragile early phase on to see the next generation of cryptocurrency and digital payments!

Thanks


Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1627583996
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1627583996

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1627583996
Reply with quote  #2

1627583996
Report to moderator
gmaxwell
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3486
Merit: 5537



View Profile
March 08, 2013, 06:59:09 AM
 #2

It cannot be pruned because it has to stay around in fast storage to detect double spends, even though ironically it cannot be spent (developers, let me know if this description is technically accurate).
It can _technically_ be spent it's just uneconomical to do it— the marginal cost (fees/lost of priority/etc) of including it in a transaction will be less than its worth. If you pruned it and then some smart alec went and spent it (costing himself coin in the process) you'd reject the chain and end up on a fork, which mr. smart alec might find profitable indeed (e.g. if you were a competing miner or a victim he wanted to attack).
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1004


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2013, 07:00:34 AM
 #3

I think calling the amounts "unspendable" is not technically correct - provided an unspent output is old enough even one that contains a single Satoshi can be spent (at least that is the case currently AFAIA).

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
Severian
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250



View Profile
March 08, 2013, 07:12:04 AM
 #4

> Put pressure on SatoshiDICE to stop the transaction spam. The principals involved in SatoshiDICE are Erik Voorhees, Roger Ver, and Jon Matonis (board member and secretary of the Bitcoin Foundation. See a conflict of interest?

I'm a lifelong member with regrets at having joined but for the fact that Gavin gets paid. It's the only reason I didn't press for the return of my bitcoins.

Email them if you're so inclined:

For Press Inquiries

    Executive Director Peter Vessenes: peter@bitcoinfoundation.org
    Secretary Jon Matonis: jon@bitcoinfoundation.org

Individual Member Class Questions

    Secretary Jon Matonis: jon@bitcoinfoundation.org
    Chief Scientist Gavin Andresen: gavin@bitcoinfoundation.org

Corporate Member Class Questions

    Vice Chairman Charlie Shrem: charlie@bitcoinfoundation.org
    Board Member Mark Karpeles: mark@bitcoinfoundation.org

Legal Questions / Contact

    Chief Counsel Patrick Murck: patrick@bitcoinfoundation.org

General Questions

    Assistant Director Lindsay Holland: lindsay@bitcoinfoundation.org

Bit_Happy
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2002
Merit: 1020


A Great Time to Start Something!


View Profile
March 08, 2013, 07:17:18 AM
 #5

Refrain from playing SatoshiDICE, since you cannot win long-term.
Meni Rosenfeld
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2058
Merit: 1027



View Profile WWW
March 08, 2013, 07:19:52 AM
 #6

Pressuring SatoshiDice is a band-aid, not a solution. The Bitcoin system is supposed to work, we're not supposed to ask people to do us a favor and not use it.

To solve the problem of unprunable small outputs, we need some form of output upkeep costs.

1EofoZNBhWQ3kxfKnvWkhtMns4AivZArhr   |   Who am I?   |   bitcoin-otc WoT
Bitcoil - Exchange bitcoins for ILS (thread)   |   Israel Bitcoin community homepage (thread)
Analysis of Bitcoin Pooled Mining Reward Systems (thread, summary)  |   PureMining - Infinite-term, deterministic mining bond
CecilNiosaki
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 100


View Profile
March 08, 2013, 07:20:17 AM
 #7

This would be taking action against a problem who is only a problem due to how to network currently operates. If you remove SDice from operation, another company will take its place. We should be happy that SDice has made this flaw apparent and take action not against SDice, but at the source rather than the "cause".
misterbigg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064
Merit: 1001



View Profile
March 08, 2013, 07:25:22 AM
 #8

Pressuring SatoshiDice is a band-aid, not a solution. The Bitcoin system is supposed to work, we're not supposed to ask people to do us a favor and not use it.

We're not asking them to not use Bitcoin, we're asking them to stop exploiting a temporary weakness for personal gain. Especially when a principal is a sitting board member of the Bitcoin Foundation.
edmundedgar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 352
Merit: 250


https://www.realitykeys.com


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2013, 07:25:49 AM
 #9

Quote
"The problem is that SatoshiDICE is taking advantage of the early stage of Bitcoin, at a time when transaction volume is too low to fill the blocks and bring fees up to a level that would make up for the drop in subsidy. If Bitcoin was fully mature, it will not be vulnerable to this type of transaction spam and no one would be talking about it let alone suggest patches, because fees would make the dust spam economically unviable."

Out of interest, how high do you think the fees would have to be to make their 1-satoshi transactions economically unviable? It strikes me that these guys are making out like bandits doing what they're doing - fees would have to get seriously high to break their (simple and apparently unbelievably profitable) business model. If you think a "mature" Bitcoin is going to price these guys out of doing what they're doing, it's going to price a lot of other uses out as well - probably to the point where we need to give up and go back to the drawing board.
Severian
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250



View Profile
March 08, 2013, 07:35:08 AM
 #10

Pressuring SatoshiDice is a band-aid, not a solution.

Elsewhere, I brought up the issue of consent. I didn't consent to host a gamebot's traffic when I run the client, I was consenting to hosting Bitcoin's traffic. If Bitcoin traffic is now a subsidiary of SD's load, perhaps SD can be persuaded to start its own blockchain and stop taking advantage of the implied consent of others on this blockchain.

I doubt that SD can be shamed into stopping what they're doing but perhaps some users of the network can be persuaded into not giving them anymore business.
Bowjob
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294
Merit: 250



View Profile
March 08, 2013, 07:36:19 AM
 #11

We will end up with a bloat chain problem sooner or later even with 1 MB limit. For now, and to buy the developers some time, I suggest a 0.1 BTC minimum bet on all bets or GTFO. That should reduce the amount of bloat. I had my TX wait for over an hour last night, it wasn't very fun.

It seemed like a good idea at the time.
misterbigg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064
Merit: 1001



View Profile
March 08, 2013, 07:37:05 AM
 #12

Out of interest, how high do you think the fees would have to be to make their 1-satoshi transactions economically unviable?

Actually I think this can be calculated from the "max bet" in the 1dice address. For "lessthan 64,000" the max bet is 500 so the fee would have to be a little bit under 500...so yeah the fees would have to be quite high! Unless my math is off.
maximian
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 25
Merit: 0


View Profile
March 08, 2013, 07:48:17 AM
 #13

As has been said many times before, trying to block SatoshiDice transactions is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

If it's not SatoshiDice that's generating "transaction spam", it'll be something else, and then something after that, and so on. Are you going to launch a new campaign against each?

Also, it's ignorant to vilify the very individuals (Erik Voorhees, Roger Ver, Jon Matonis) who, by their tireless evangelizing, are probably most responsible for making Bitcoin as popular as it is today. If you hold any bitcoins and are enjoying their current value, you owe the aforementioned a debt of gratitude.
misterbigg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064
Merit: 1001



View Profile
March 08, 2013, 07:58:43 AM
 #14

If it's not SatoshiDice that's generating "transaction spam", it'll be something else, and then something after that, and so on. Are you going to launch a new campaign against each?

It's a good point. This campaign is only an interim measure until robust technical solutions are rolled out. These solutions should not single out SatoshiDICE but rather, focus on the undesired behavior (unspendable low value transaction outputs). This will solve the problem network wide instead of just fixing it for one vendor.
uhoh
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742
Merit: 500


Circle gets the Square


View Profile
March 08, 2013, 07:58:51 AM
Last edit: March 08, 2013, 08:16:13 AM by uhoh
 #15

If a small website that 99.9999999% of the world population don't even know about is causing a problem for Bitcoin, then what hope do we have. You don't fix a problem in a p2p payment network by politely (or impolitely in this case) asking them to please stop. That's, of course, assuming that this even IS a problem. I agree with Mike. They're the only site that's really testing the real world (as in wide adoption) stability of the network.

If SDice is considered an attack on Bitcoin, Then Bitcoin itself is flawed.

EDIT: I will add, I cannot for the life of me understand why people are willing to play a negative EV game, with a currency that was worth $13 2 months ago and $42 today... It defies all logic. 
Bit_Happy
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2002
Merit: 1020


A Great Time to Start Something!


View Profile
March 08, 2013, 08:04:24 AM
 #16

...
If SDice is considered an attack on Bitcoin, Then Bitcoin itself is flawed.

Uh-oh, uhoh has a good point.
bigbox
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 50
Merit: 0


View Profile
March 08, 2013, 08:18:59 AM
 #17

Elsewhere, I brought up the issue of consent. I didn't consent to host a gamebot's traffic when I run the client, I was consenting to hosting Bitcoin's traffic. If Bitcoin traffic is now a subsidiary of SD's load, perhaps SD can be persuaded to start its own blockchain and stop taking advantage of the implied consent of others on this blockchain.

I doubt that SD can be shamed into stopping what they're doing but perhaps some users of the network can be persuaded into not giving them anymore business.

I didn't "consent to host" a pot smoker's traffic, so we should figure out a way to block Silk Road's transactions.

I didn't consent to host traffic for a site selling adult toys, so we should block Bitcoinin.com's transactions.

I didn't consent to host traffic related to adult content, so we should block transactions from all the porn sites.

I know somebody that is a luddite, so out of deference to him we should block transactions from electronics resellers like bitcoinstore.com.

I've never used SatoshiDice, but I'm not sure I like vilifying certain types of transactions. That said, I wouldn't mind if SD could figure out a way to lower their load on the network.
uhoh
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742
Merit: 500


Circle gets the Square


View Profile
March 08, 2013, 08:22:44 AM
 #18

Elsewhere, I brought up the issue of consent. I didn't consent to host a gamebot's traffic when I run the client, I was consenting to hosting Bitcoin's traffic. If Bitcoin traffic is now a subsidiary of SD's load, perhaps SD can be persuaded to start its own blockchain and stop taking advantage of the implied consent of others on this blockchain.

I doubt that SD can be shamed into stopping what they're doing but perhaps some users of the network can be persuaded into not giving them anymore business.

I didn't "consent to host" a pot smoker's traffic, so we should figure out a way to block Silk Road's transactions.

I didn't consent to host traffic for a site selling adult toys, so we should block Bitcoinin.com's transactions.

I didn't consent to host traffic related to adult content, so we should block transactions from all the porn sites.

I know somebody that is a luddite, so out of deference to him we should block transactions from electronics resellers like bitcoinstore.com.

I've never used SatoshiDice, but I'm not sure I like vilifying certain types of transactions. That said, I wouldn't mind if SD could figure out a way to lower their load on the network.

Well put. What's the point of this whole experiment if we're just going to pull a VISA and block any entity we don't agree with.
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1000


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
March 08, 2013, 08:27:45 AM
 #19

Fantastic OP. I agree 100% with it.

Don't forget that even if SD starts internalizing all its business, like Mt. Gox and other major sites, that SD-clones could kick-off at any time and do similar long-term damage to Bitcoin.

The solution is employing even smarter anti-spam filtering for miners which reduces this type of transaction flow to a maximum percentage of "normal" flow, at most 50%, probably a lower target, perhaps 20% is best.

koin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 874
Merit: 1000


View Profile
March 08, 2013, 09:00:05 AM
 #20

The principals involved in SatoshiDICE are [...] and Jon Matonis

source?
misterbigg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064
Merit: 1001



View Profile
March 08, 2013, 09:19:00 AM
 #21

The principals involved in SatoshiDICE are [...] and Jon Matonis

source?

Currently it is hearsay.
Astro
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 278
Merit: 250



View Profile
March 08, 2013, 09:48:32 AM
 #22

If the network can't handle the load from SD then we should all just pack it in and go home.  You ain't seen nothin' yet.
Monster Tent
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238
Merit: 100



View Profile
March 08, 2013, 10:01:03 AM
 #23

> Put pressure on SatoshiDICE to stop the transaction spam. The principals involved in SatoshiDICE are Erik Voorhees, Roger Ver, and Jon Matonis (board member and secretary of the Bitcoin Foundation. See a conflict of interest?

I'm a lifelong member with regrets at having joined but for the fact that Gavin gets paid. It's the only reason I didn't press for the return of my bitcoins.

Email them if you're so inclined:

For Press Inquiries

    Executive Director Peter Vessenes: peter@bitcoinfoundation.org
    Secretary Jon Matonis: jon@bitcoinfoundation.org

Individual Member Class Questions

    Secretary Jon Matonis: jon@bitcoinfoundation.org
    Chief Scientist Gavin Andresen: gavin@bitcoinfoundation.org

Corporate Member Class Questions

    Vice Chairman Charlie Shrem: charlie@bitcoinfoundation.org
    Board Member Mark Karpeles: mark@bitcoinfoundation.org

Legal Questions / Contact

    Chief Counsel Patrick Murck: patrick@bitcoinfoundation.org

General Questions

    Assistant Director Lindsay Holland: lindsay@bitcoinfoundation.org




What is your source on Jon Matonis owning SD ?

cedivad
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001



View Profile
March 08, 2013, 10:10:39 AM
 #24

This topic is a good reason for bears to be bears.

My anger against what is wrong in the Bitcoin community is productive:
Bitcointa.lk - Replace "Bitcointalk.org" with "Bitcointa.lk" in this url to see how this page looks like on a proper forum (Announcement Thread)
Hashfast.org - Wiki for screwed customers
fergalish
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 440
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 08, 2013, 10:23:14 AM
 #25

How about a solution like this. A transaction can include outputs that anyone can spend, without requiring a private key to unlock; let's call them "free" outputs. So, the smaller any single output is, the more free outputs the transaction must have, with each free output equal to the standard transaction fee.

Obviously the free outputs will be claimed by clients that relay or mine the transaction. Some clients might not relay the transaction if all the free outputs are already taken, therefore in the interest of propogation, a single relaying client will not be tempted to immediately claim all the free transactions.

However -- I'm not sure about a technical aspect of this. Suppose I send a transaction with two free outputs. The first relay claims one and leaves another blank. The transaction is then mined, so the miner claims the second. However: could the miner also *erase* the claim on the first free output, and insert a new claim on it?  In other words, can the original transaction be derived from the one in which the first free output is claimed?



An alternative solution is this. At the moment, the fee is TXFEE * TXSIZE, where TXFEE is 0.0005BTC and TXSIZE is measured in kB, right?  And the fee must be applied if: a) the priority is low b) TXSIZE > 1 or c) any output < 0.01 BTC. How about changing the fee to:  TXFEE*TXSIZE + SUM_{OUTPUTS<0.01}(TXFEE*log2(0.01/outputvalue)).  Let me explain:

TXFEE*TXSIZE is the same as before.

0.01/outputvalue = 1.0 if outputvalue=0.01
                        = 2 if outputvalue=0.005
                        = 8 if outputvalue=0.000125
and so on.

log_2(...) = 0 if outputvalue=0.01
              = 1 if outputvalue=0.005
              = 3 if outputvalue=0.000125
and so on

So, for each output below 0.01BTC (threshold which depends on bitcoin value, currently ~$40), every time the output halves in value, the transaction fee must increase by TXFEE.

So, a 750Byte transaction with outputs (0.5, 0.01, 0.009, 0.001, 0.00000001) will require a fee on the last three outputs only:   TXFEE*[log2(0.01/0.009) + log2(0.01/0.001) + log2(0.01/1e-8)] = TXFEE*[0.15 + 3.32 + 19.93] = 23.4 * TXFEE.

As you can see, the 1 satoshi output really costs alot of fees.

The problem is that this will merely make the transaction more expensive benefiting the miner - it will not reward non-miners for having to store, relay and validate the output (though that might be impossible anyway).
kerogre256
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 161
Merit: 100


View Profile
March 08, 2013, 10:35:39 AM
 #26

"Transaction spam" is the largest issue threatening the fledgeling currency called Bitcoin. A brief synopsis of the problem:

"SatoshiDICE" notifies gambling addicts of losing bets by sending them a transaction containing 1 satoshi back to their original address. A regular transaction fee is also included in this transaction. The problem is that this produces an unspendable and unprunable output. The output is unspendable because it is so small that it would cost more in fees than it would to send. It cannot be pruned because it has to stay around in fast storage to detect double spends, even though ironically it cannot be spent (developers, let me know if this description is technically accurate).

The immense volume of SatoshiDICE transactions crowds out regular transactions, driving up fees for normal users. This would almost be okay if SatoshiDICE was bringing in new users to Bitcoin in proportion to its increased transaction volume. But most of these transactions come from automated bots running 24/7 spending tiny amounts of Bitcoin. Miners have a love and hate relationship with this transaction spam. They love the fees, but hate that they need to store every one of these transactions on the hard drive, FOREVER. They cannot be pruned since they are unspent outputs. But what's the real problem?

The problem is that SatoshiDICE is taking advantage of the early stage of Bitcoin, at a time when transaction volume is too low to fill the blocks and bring fees up to a level that would make up for the drop in subsidy. If Bitcoin was fully mature, it will not be vulnerable to this type of transaction spam and no one would be talking about it let alone suggest patches, because fees would make the dust spam economically unviable.

We do not have a mature network, and we're in the bootstrapping phase. SatoshiDICE is consuming the "startup capital" (current state of low fees, high subsidy, and lots of free space in blocks) to profit without bringing a corresponding increase in growth of Bitcoin adoption. The simple fact is that a relatively small handful of gambling addicts and bots are flooding the block chain with 70%+ of its transactions.

What can you do to help?

* Put pressure on SatoshiDICE to stop the transaction spam. The principals involved in SatoshiDICE are Erik Voorhees, Roger Ver, and Jon Matonis (board member and secretary of the Bitcoin Foundation. See a conflict of interest?

* Show your support in asking the MPOE exchange where the S.DICE security is located, to de-list the security until the problem is addressed.

* Appeal to the S.DICE shareholders to pressure MPOE to de-list S.DICE.

* Ask BlockChain.info to remove the playable direct links to SatoshiDICE from it's wallet service as a courtesy to the network

* Vote Jon Matonis off the board of the Bitcoin Foundation at the next election.

* Apply suggested patches and updates to your client or mining software to protect the network.

With your help and the rest of the community we can work together to see Bitcoin through this fragile early phase on to see the next generation of cryptocurrency and digital payments!

Thanks




Are you for real ? What is difference between transfering 1 bitcoin and 1 shatoshi for netowork?, there is no difference .... If for bitcoin network, one web page is problem then better sell all your bitcoin now, if bitcon become global suces 99.99999% transaction will be done in Satoshi.
kerogre256
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 161
Merit: 100


View Profile
March 08, 2013, 10:40:57 AM
 #27



So, for each output below 0.01BTC (threshold which depends on bitcoin value, currently ~$40), every time the output halves in value, the transaction fee must increase by TXFEE.



LOL
Bitcoin value for me is pricless now please put it in code....
fergalish
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 440
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 08, 2013, 10:57:59 AM
 #28



So, for each output below 0.01BTC (threshold which depends on bitcoin value, currently ~$40), every time the output halves in value, the transaction fee must increase by TXFEE.



LOL
Bitcoin value for me is pricless now please put it in code....
Would be reviewed periodically by developers - much like the transaction fee, now at 0.0005BTC. If bitcoins jump to $100 or $200, the minimum transaction fee will probably be reduced to 0.0001BTC. What I mean is, with fiat currency, there is a minimum transaction - $0.01.  Actually, in Canada, isn't it CAD$0.02 ?  I gather some European countries don't even use €0.01 coins anymore.

So the devs would introduce a minimum recommended transaction output of 0.01 BTC. According as 1 BTC buys more and more potatoes, the minimum transaction should be reduced accordingly. In any case, the minimum transaction output should ALWAYS be greater than the minimum transaction fee, so that these spammy outputs can always pay for their own redeeming and be eventually pruned.
lophie
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 1000

Unlimited Free Crypto


View Profile
March 08, 2013, 11:00:59 AM
 #29

@fergalish

Su you are saying lets start giving specific individuals powers to control aspects of Bitcoin and change things as "they see fit"....... remind me again why do we believe Bitcoin is different than the other crap outthere?

- Edit, Just noticed you mean periodically change the "recommended" fees. Sorry that would be totally okay IMO.

Will take me a while to climb up again, But where is a will, there is a way...
ShadowOfHarbringer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 1003


Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952


View Profile
March 08, 2013, 11:04:40 AM
 #30

* Put pressure on SatoshiDICE to stop the transaction spam. The principals involved in SatoshiDICE are Erik Voorhees,

If he can spam Bitcoin network that means its a vulnerability. Vulnerability that needs to be fixed.

It is pointless to "put pressure" on anybody. On the contrary, its good that somebody shows us what needs to be improved. SatoshiDICE is not our enemy, just an opportunist using an opportunity.

If ever governments decide that they don't like Bitcoin after all, SatoshiDICE will be the least of our problems. A real enemy like that will use any means possible (including spamming the network) to harm BTC.

So perhaps let's grab this opportunity to harden the Bitcoin protocol instead of complaining.
.
.
Pressuring SatoshiDice is a band-aid, not a solution. The Bitcoin system is supposed to work, we're not supposed to ask people to do us a favor and not use it.

To solve the problem of unprunable small outputs, we need some form of output upkeep costs.

+1

Mike Hearn
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1526
Merit: 1025


View Profile
March 08, 2013, 12:24:46 PM
 #31

I've never heard of anyone except evorhees being involved with SatoshiDice. You should really be careful with throwing names around like that.
phelix
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1012



View Profile
March 08, 2013, 12:33:12 PM
 #32

Is there a particular reason fees higher than the transaction value are allowed?

What about imposing this:

Smallest output must be at least 10 times the fee.

It would always ensure that it is possible to spend output, thus allow pruning.
oleganza
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 200
Merit: 100


Software design and user experience.


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2013, 12:49:09 PM
Last edit: March 08, 2013, 01:58:35 PM by oleganza
 #33

"Transaction spam" is the largest issue threatening the fledgeling currency called Bitcoin.
(...)
Miners have a love and hate relationship with this transaction spam. They love the fees, but hate that they need to store every one of these transactions on the hard drive, FOREVER. They cannot be pruned since they are unspent outputs.
(...)
We do not have a mature network, and we're in the bootstrapping phase. SatoshiDICE is consuming the "startup capital" (current state of low fees, high subsidy, and lots of free space in blocks)

What a load of nonsense. I myself do not care about SatoshiDice at all, but seeing people making a drama about it makes me itchy.

First, it's your subjective opinion what is "spam" and what is not "spam". Miners voluntarily include transactions they want and voluntarily accept blocks from other miners. They account for their storage costs themselves without asking your opinion. If the disk is scarce for you, do not store the whole blockchain. My phone disk space is valuable for me, so I don't keep the whole blockchain there. Maybe I should complain to the Pope or Mr. President that there are too many transactions out there for my phone to handle?

Second, it's your subjective opinion regarding the "maturity" of the network. For me Bitcoin is not even "beta", but already proven and working protocol. You may disagree, but I don't see how my opinion should block your transactions and your opinion should block mine. It's up to actual miners and every other single user to decide whether to verify/include/relay/store/prune transactions. And everyone will decide for themselves individually. I may prune some transactions from the blockchain, you may choose to have block headers only. Or we can store random 1% of all transactions and download more only when needed from the peers around.

Third, "startup capital" does not exist. As does not exist any "common good". Good is always evaluated subjectively and individually. There is no "society" entity acting on its own. It is just a name for a bunch of people acting in their own self-interest. SatoshiDice consumes only the resources that somebody is willing to sell and others are willing to pay for. There is no "danger" whatsoever. You are basically calling for censorship based on your personal preferences, disguising them under "common good" myth. This strategy is very dishonest and reminds me of shitload of propaganda that is poured on every single person all around the world for the last several thousand years.





Bitcoin analytics: blog.oleganza.com / 1TipsuQ7CSqfQsjA9KU5jarSB1AnrVLLo
mobile4ever
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 546
Merit: 500


View Profile
March 08, 2013, 12:56:30 PM
Last edit: March 08, 2013, 03:49:33 PM by mobile4ever
 #34


Well put. What's the point of this whole experiment if we're just going to pull a VISA and block any entity we don't agree with.


Because we are to free block things we dont like. We are in this together.


But, doesnt this news mean we could use a few more nodes? With seven billion people in the world, the total amount of transactions needed can be averaged out, even taking the "spam" uses into account.


One of the more higher-ups than me, who is probably a member of the Bitcoin Foundation, said the blocks need to be made bigger and started telling folks to change settings and to reject some traffic.


Whatever we do, lets fix this. If more nodes will work, lets do it, if rejecting some traffic that is unacceptable to the community will fix it, lets do it. If we are all washed up here, Smiley and there really is no problem, lets find that out as well.

justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400
Merit: 1006



View Profile
March 08, 2013, 01:15:05 PM
 #35

The problem of unspendable outputs can be fixed with dust collection algorithms in the clients.

With every transaction the coin selection algorithm can check to see if any dust outputs can be included as an input without causing the transaction to require a higher fee.
Killdozer
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 203
Merit: 100



View Profile
March 08, 2013, 01:25:05 PM
 #36

Quote
You n00bs! As always, gambling services = plausibly deniable money laundering. Wink
Right now, the whole fucking Bitcoin network is plausibly deniable money laundering  Grin

Rygon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 520
Merit: 500


View Profile
March 08, 2013, 01:28:40 PM
 #37

Miners are the ones with the voting power here. Specifically, that voting power is weighted based on their ability to quickly download blocks and transactions, solve blocks, and then push the blocks out to the network. Right now, this is based on their hashing ability. If the blocks start to become too large because of transaction volume, it could take minutes instead of seconds to push around all that data over networks, which would impact the speed of solving blocks. If the fees aren't high enough, the miners may decide to start pruning out transactions in order to gain a leg up on the competition. AFAIK, we aren't there yet, except for a few pools that don't include SDICE transactions.

I don't think we have a real issue until the average fee that the miners demand for inclusion in the blockchain becomes too large for most of the users on the network. The likely reaction to that would be for specific applications to move their traffic onto internal networks, which would take some load off the blockchain. If the network became too fractured, then obviously that could be a potential flaw.

And if you want to block transactions going to/from SDICE, you really ought to be convincing the mining pools to reject them or charge higher fees, since they are the only ones who can do something about it.
WiW
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 277
Merit: 250


"The public is stupid, hence the public will pay"


View Profile
March 08, 2013, 01:31:16 PM
 #38

I don't see the problem. Raise the max block size limit and problem solved.

SDice is only sending so many txns because it's cheap. When it becomes expensive, they'll stop (or find some other creative way to do what they do). People will use the blockchain however they're allowed to. All you're saying is that you don't trust the design of bitcoin to handle this stuff and you want a centralized "solution" to something you don't like on the network.

Go use fiat.
nebulus
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 490
Merit: 500


... it only gets better...


View Profile
March 08, 2013, 01:31:24 PM
 #39

Sorry but thread title is misleading.

ShadowOfHarbringer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 1003


Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952


View Profile
March 08, 2013, 01:32:02 PM
Last edit: March 08, 2013, 04:04:43 PM by ShadowOfHarbringer
 #40

"Transaction spam" is the largest issue threatening the fledgeling currency called Bitcoin.
(...)
Miners have a love and hate relationship with this transaction spam. They love the fees, but hate that they need to store every one of these transactions on the hard drive, FOREVER. They cannot be pruned since they are unspent outputs.
(...)
We do not have a mature network, and we're in the bootstrapping phase. SatoshiDICE is consuming the "startup capital" (current state of low fees, high subsidy, and lots of free space in blocks)

What a load of nonsense. I myself do not care about SatoshiDice at all, but seeing people making a drama about it makes me itchy.

Exactly. This whole thread is complete bullshit and waste of time.


justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400
Merit: 1006



View Profile
March 08, 2013, 01:32:47 PM
 #41

Sorry but thread title is misleading.
Right. There is an attack, but it's originating from the OP.
misterbigg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064
Merit: 1001



View Profile
March 08, 2013, 02:27:13 PM
 #42

First, it's your subjective opinion what is "spam" and what is not "spam".

If you read the post, then you understand that these outputs can never be realistically spent, since they would cost more in fees than the amount received.

Quote
If the disk is scarce for you, do not store the whole blockchain.

Again, you do not understand that these transactions cannot be pruned. They must exist until the end of time, and yet the outputs cannot be spent.

Quote
Second, it's your subjective opinion regarding the "maturity" of the network.

No. The maturity can be measured objectively as the average fill rate of blocks (currently at roughly 25%).

Quote
Third, "startup capital" does not exist. As does not exist any "common good".

The block subsidy is a temporary incentive to reward miners as the system bootstraps itself. It also exists to handle the problem of the initial distribution of coins (Ripple developers take note). The "startup capital" refers to the current condition of low fees and lack of competition for space in the block chain.

Quote
You are basically calling for censorship based on your personal preferences, disguising them under "common good" myth.

No, I'm saying that we don't need fees to go up sooner than necessary just because of one bad actor on the network.

The problem of unspendable outputs can be fixed with dust collection algorithms in the clients. With every transaction the coin selection algorithm can check to see if any dust outputs can be included as an input without causing the transaction to require a higher fee.

If your proposed change was to go through, an attacker could cheaply flood the network by first creating a lot of dust, then sending it to himself, and finally creating many transactions that spend the dust as an input using the lower fee.

Miners are the ones with the voting power here. ...If the blocks start to become too large because of transaction volume, it could take minutes instead of seconds to push around all that data over networks...

The transaction volume wouldn't be a problem in the future since we will regularly reach the 1mb limit. It's only a problem now because the network is young. But the transaction volume is only one part of the problem. The other part is the unspendable.

Every time SatoshIDICE sends a losing bet transaction, every current node and every new node must keep a copy of the transaction until the end of time.

I don't see the problem. Raise the max block size limit and problem solved.

Raising the max block size would make the problem worse, since even more SatoshiDICE transaction spam would be permanently etched into the block chain, with no possibility of getting spent.
anarchy
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 102
Merit: 10


View Profile
March 08, 2013, 03:08:50 PM
 #43

Misterbigg, first of all, let the programmers solve it (you have no authority on the matter)
Second, please stop spreading fear and panic
Third, banning *anything* will be the end of bitcoin
misterbigg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064
Merit: 1001



View Profile
March 08, 2013, 03:10:43 PM
 #44

banning *anything* will be the end of bitcoin

When did I ever suggest we "ban" anything? You're thinking about someone else's thread and patch. I never said ban.

You're right that developers need to address the issue. But for now the best us non-developers can do is try to raise awareness and use social pressure to encourage the actors on the network to act in it's best interests (although I concede that might be a long shot).
evoorhees
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008
Merit: 1009


Democracy is the original 51% attack


View Profile
March 08, 2013, 03:33:35 PM
 #45


* Put pressure on SatoshiDICE to stop the transaction spam. The principals involved in SatoshiDICE are Erik Voorhees, Roger Ver, and Jon Matonis (board member and secretary of the Bitcoin Foundation. See a conflict of interest?


Neither Roger Ver nor Jon Matonis are principles of SatoshiDice.
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 1013


Gerald Davis


View Profile
March 08, 2013, 03:41:30 PM
 #46

I would point out that pruning doesn't have to be binary.  It can be probalistic.

For example the active transaction set could exclude all spent outputs and all unspent outputs below a certain threshold, it could even exclude very old outputs.  Essentially the active transaction set is acting like a cache and using probalistic functions to try and balance resource requirements vs cache hit rate.

If a transaction is created which uses an output not in the active set then the details could be fetched from the full unpruned database.   If is even possible that some nodes wouldn't maintain this locally and simply query other nodes by sending the tx id and requesting details.

SD inefficiently uses a critical resource.  Basically it comes down to you either believe in free markets or you don't.  If you really believe in free markets then the market will solve the problem of inefficiency.  More valuable transactions will crowd out SD ineffcient use of the resource.  SD will adapt either by raising min and thus collecting same revenue using less of the critical resource, or by moving transactions off blockchain.    If you don't believe in free markets then Bitcoin will fail eventually anyways.  SD isn't a problem, Bitcoin is.

Personally I believe free markets are the most efficient allocator of resources (including space in a block) and thus SD isn't a "problem" long term.
Bitobsessed
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 291
Merit: 250



View Profile
March 08, 2013, 03:43:01 PM
 #47



So, for each output below 0.01BTC (threshold which depends on bitcoin value, currently ~$40), every time the output halves in value, the transaction fee must increase by TXFEE.



LOL
Bitcoin value for me is pricless now please put it in code....
Would be reviewed periodically by developers - much like the transaction fee, now at 0.0005BTC. If bitcoins jump to $100 or $200, the minimum transaction fee will probably be reduced to 0.0001BTC. What I mean is, with fiat currency, there is a minimum transaction - $0.01.  Actually, in Canada, isn't it CAD$0.02 ?  I gather some European countries don't even use €0.01 coins anymore.

So the devs would introduce a minimum recommended transaction output of 0.01 BTC. According as 1 BTC buys more and more potatoes, the minimum transaction should be reduced accordingly. In any case, the minimum transaction output should ALWAYS be greater than the minimum transaction fee, so that these spammy outputs can always pay for their own redeeming and be eventually pruned.

With fiat, $0.01 is the minimum transaction because that is the smallest unit created.  In Bitcoin the smallest unit is 0.00000001 and should be able to be spent just like a penny, but it is uneconomical because of the way Bitcoin is transferred you usually have to pay a txfee.  If you are just discovering this, you need to go back and read some more.  With that, you can still send Bitcoin without a txfee, good luck getting it included in a block though.  I used to send Bitcoin all the time without a fee and it was usually always included in the very next block.  The problem is not Satoshi Dice, the problem is that Bitcoin is still being developed and tested.  I think this needs addressed by the developers and is not so much of a problem now, but will be in the future if adoption and price continues to rise.   

That all being said, "can" Satoshi Dice do something about this to help the network short term? Yes.
Would it cut into their profits? Yes
Will they do anything? Probably not...
conv3rsion
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 310
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 08, 2013, 03:44:04 PM
 #48

banning *anything* will be the end of bitcoin

When did I ever suggest we "ban" anything? You're thinking about someone else's thread and patch. I never said ban.

You're right that developers need to address the issue. But for now the best us non-developers can do is try to raise awareness and use social pressure to encourage the actors on the network to act in it's best interests (although I concede that might be a long shot).


The developers will address the issue and as we both know are already well aware of it. Your "raising awareness" is just your attempt to create FUD. Asking the actors to act in the network's best interest is the wrong approach. In the short term, a better solution would be for pool operators to detect this "abuse" and voluntarily decide to not include these types of transactions (matching this pattern) into their blocks rather than just "banning" certain addresses.  

Its economically unfeasible to spend a Satoshi today (and that affects pruning) because a Satoshi is less than the current standard transaction fee. No shit. That doesn't mean that it always will be. Guess what happens if the block size is never raised? It becomes economically unfeasible to spend a mBit or uBit because the transaction fee rises (in BTC) and a BTC's value drops (in USD or whatever). That makes this exact problem worse.

Your motivations become more transparent by the day.
WiW
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 277
Merit: 250


"The public is stupid, hence the public will pay"


View Profile
March 08, 2013, 03:45:07 PM
 #49

I don't see the problem. Raise the max block size limit and problem solved.

Raising the max block size would make the problem worse, since even more SatoshiDICE transaction spam would be permanently etched into the block chain, with no possibility of getting spent.

So who gets to pick who gets to spend what they want however they want? Just because YOU and HIM don't like SDice means they don't get to use bitcoin??

I have an idea. How about you go print your own fiat and regulate all you want. If you're worried about SDice wasting satoshis or the blockchain getting large then you don't understand bitcoin. Neither of these are a "problem". Stop fear-mongering.
Timo Y
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938
Merit: 1001


bitcoin - the aerogel of money


View Profile
March 08, 2013, 03:45:15 PM
 #50

If anywhere this should be solved at the protocol level, not at the social level. The bitcoin system should be completely agnostic about the intention of a transaction.  All it should be concerned about is the total cost of a transaction, both to the miners and relay nodes.

If people start using patched clients to block transactions based on perceived intentions, we are going to get into a huge mess.  Players like Satoshidice are going to start obfuscating their intentions, resulting in arms race, and before long there will be collateral damage, and innocent people who's transactions look like their intention is X,Y and Z are going to have them blocked.

It's going to be a bit like the old financial system. After some players misbehaved, government introduced rules like 'trading X with the intention to speculate is prohibited'.  Of course, this didn't stop traders from speculating, it just encouraged them to repackage their financial instruments to make it look like it's not speculation.  

These intention-based rules only make the financial system more complex, less transparent, less fair, and less stable.  We really don't want to do the same to Bitcoin. Let's keep it simple please!

GPG ID: FA868D77   bitcoin-otc:forever-d
ShadowOfHarbringer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 1003


Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952


View Profile
March 08, 2013, 03:45:23 PM
Last edit: March 08, 2013, 04:04:47 PM by ShadowOfHarbringer
 #51

banning *anything* will be the end of bitcoin
raise awareness and use social pressure to encourage the actors on the network to act in it's best interests

Bullshit.

Not every user of the network is acting in its best interests. On the contrary: there are and there will be many people who will try to destroy the network or simply use it for their own means / their profits without caring about how this affects other users.

We need to be prepared for everything, not whine around because somebody is using a known vulnerability. Vulnerability needs to be fixed and that is end of discussion.

evoorhees
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008
Merit: 1009


Democracy is the original 51% attack


View Profile
March 08, 2013, 03:45:52 PM
 #52

* Put pressure on SatoshiDICE to stop the transaction spam. The principals involved in SatoshiDICE are Erik Voorhees,

If he can spam Bitcoin network that means its a vulnerability. Vulnerability that needs to be fixed.

It is pointless to "put pressure" on anybody. On the contrary, its good that somebody shows us what needs to be improved. SatoshiDICE is not our enemy, just an opportunist using an opportunity.

If ever governments decide that they don't like Bitcoin after all, SatoshiDICE will be the least of our problems. A real enemy like that will use any means possible (including spamming the network) to harm BTC.

So perhaps let's grab this opportunity to harden the Bitcoin protocol instead of complaining.
.
.
Pressuring SatoshiDice is a band-aid, not a solution. The Bitcoin system is supposed to work, we're not supposed to ask people to do us a favor and not use it.

To solve the problem of unprunable small outputs, we need some form of output upkeep costs.

+1

+1

This is so obvious I'm astounded that people keep parroting SD as a "problem."  Let's say I shut down SatoshiDice tomorrow, has Bitcoin gotten stronger? More resilient? More impressive? More worthy of global commerce? Here's what would happen:

1) People would see that Bitcoin was so vulnerable that one of its leading advocates had to shut down one of the most profitable Bitcoin sites because the Bitcoin network "couldn't handle it."  Perhaps it would make it into the press with the headline, "Bitcoin too weak to support one small gambling site"

2) Bitcoin's usefulness for mini- or micro-transactions, or even "numerous transactions" would be abolished. There'd be significant in-fighting over what constituted "microtransactions" and "transaction spam."

3) Any other person or company could and would create new services (like SD or totally different) that also creates many transactions. The "problem" would then be back, perhaps much bigger. Any "progress" gained by exiling SD would be very swiftly lost.

But at least Luke-Jr, misterbigg, and their cohort of whining babies would be happy because they "saved Bitcoin"  Roll Eyes

evoorhees
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008
Merit: 1009


Democracy is the original 51% attack


View Profile
March 08, 2013, 03:47:17 PM
 #53

You are basically calling for censorship based on your personal preferences, disguising them under "common good" myth. This strategy is very dishonest and reminds me of shitload of propaganda that is poured on every single person all around the world for the last several thousand years.



If anywhere this should be solved at the protocol level, not at the social level. The bitcoin system should be completely agnostic about the intention of a transaction.  All it should be concerned about is the total cost of a transaction, both to the miners and relay nodes.

If people start using patched clients to block transactions based on perceived intentions, we are going to get into a huge mess.  

You guys have restored my faith in the forum community, very well said Smiley
misterbigg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064
Merit: 1001



View Profile
March 08, 2013, 03:52:11 PM
 #54

Let's say I shut down SatoshiDice tomorrow

I think that's going a little too far. How about just not sending dust to notify losing bets?
Jutarul
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 994
Merit: 1000



View Profile
March 08, 2013, 03:52:56 PM
 #55

SD inefficiently uses a critical resource.  Basically it comes down to you either believe in free markets or you don't. ... Personally I believe free markets are the most efficient allocator of resources (including space in a block) and thus SD isn't a "problem" long term.
this.

What doesn't kill you makes you stronger. SD is a business model which is viable because it kinda enjoys a free ride. The moment gambler's have to spend 50% irreversible fee on a 50:50 bet, they're going to say, WTF.

So in essence SD competes only with a zero-transaction fee market. I have no problem with miners using social criteria on a zero-transaction fee market, because it's altruistic anyway. (also note the distinction between propagation vs. validation, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=149668.msg1600289#msg1600289)

The ASICMINER Project https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=99497.0
"The way you solve things is by making it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing.", Milton Friedman
mccorvic
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 08, 2013, 03:53:44 PM
 #56

After reading OP all I have to say is....da fuuuuuuuuuq?

I think I might just through a few bets into SD just to cleanse myself from all the FUD you just posted.

Offering Video/Audio Editing Services since 2011 - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=77932.0
evoorhees
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008
Merit: 1009


Democracy is the original 51% attack


View Profile
March 08, 2013, 03:56:51 PM
 #57

Let's say I shut down SatoshiDice tomorrow

I think that's going a little too far. How about just not sending dust to notify losing bets?


That would reduce the SD transactions by about 25%. Will that satisfy you and solve the "problem"? Or will this discussion flare up again when SD grows by a subsequent 33% a month later?
misterbigg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064
Merit: 1001



View Profile
March 08, 2013, 03:58:20 PM
 #58

More valuable transactions will crowd out SD ineffcient use of the resource...Personally I believe free markets are the most efficient allocator of resources (including space in a block) and thus SD isn't a "problem" long term.

It's true that SD isn't a problem long term but as of this very moment, SD transaction spam accounts for upwards of 80% of all transaction volume. There is so much of it (likely due to betting bots) that it is driving up transaction fees. Eventually fees will go up anyway but we don't need fees to increase so much yet. The block subsidy is more than enough to incentivize mining. What the SD transaction spam is doing is prematurely raising the costs of transactions at a time when Bitcoin is in it's early stage and doesn't need the burden.

We need to be prepared for everything, not whine around because somebody is using a known vulnerability. Vulnerability needs to be fixed and that is end of discussion.

Yeah, I don't think anyone is disputing that the vulnerability needs to be fixed but until we have a robust technical measure in place that discourages the bad behavior (instead of just blocking any address that starts with "1dice") I think that raising awareness is the best we can do. You're more than welcome to propose solutions in the Development and Technical Discussion forum.
conv3rsion
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 310
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 08, 2013, 03:59:09 PM
 #59



If you read the post, then you understand that these outputs can never be realistically spent, since they would cost more in fees than the amount received.


That's only true today. Maybe in the future a bitcoin becomes divisible to 16 places. Either way, who cares?

Quote
Again, you do not understand that these transactions cannot be pruned. They must exist until the end of time, and yet the outputs cannot be spent.

So what? If disk space is a problem for you, don't run a full node. I have 10x the current size of the Bitcoin blockchain available on one thumb drive I got for $30. And guess what, it turns out that storage gets cheaper over time. Crazy huh?


Quote
No, I'm saying that we don't need fees to go up sooner than necessary just because of one bad actor on the network.

We should be thankful for this "bad actor". He is helping to understand how to deal with a larger issue by working within the system as it currently exists at a stage that is early enough to correct the problem.

Quote

Every time SatoshIDICE sends a losing bet transaction, every current node and every new node must keep a copy of the transaction until the end of time.

Yup, that's how Bitcoin works. So what? SD paid a transaction fee to do that.


misterbigg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064
Merit: 1001



View Profile
March 08, 2013, 04:01:21 PM
 #60

...How about just not sending dust to notify losing bets?
That would reduce the SD transactions by about 25%. Will that satisfy you and solve the "problem"? Or will this discussion flare up again when SD grows by a subsequent 33% a month later?

Again it's not the volume of transactions that is the sole problem, it's the unprunable and unspendable outputs that are sent for losing bets. They will be carried around in every copy of the block, in perpetuity, and can never be realistically spent (since it would cost more in fees than the actual amount).

The volume is making fees go up in the short term which isn't the best but that problem will go away as we get more "legitimate" transactions. But the unprunable and unspendable outputs have a permanent effect.

Bitobsessed
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 291
Merit: 250



View Profile
March 08, 2013, 04:03:11 PM
 #61

OP, thread title is VERY misleading...go take some prozac.
ShadowOfHarbringer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 1003


Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952


View Profile
March 08, 2013, 04:03:37 PM
 #62

I think that raising awareness is the best we can do.

This is not "raising awarness". This is whining like a crybaby, and spreading unnecessary panic & chaos.

misterbigg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064
Merit: 1001



View Profile
March 08, 2013, 04:03:58 PM
 #63

Yup, that's how Bitcoin works. So what? SD paid a transaction fee to do that.

No, it's not how Bitcoin works. When you send an ordinary transaction, it's outputs only need to stay in the block chain while they are unspent. After someone spends the entire output, it can be pruned (removed from disk). Until that point it needs to stay in long term storage. Single-satoshi outputs would cost more in fees to send than the amount of the output, which is why no sane person would ever spend such an amount. For this reason they effectively can never be pruned.
johnyj
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1006


Beyond Imagination


View Profile
March 08, 2013, 04:05:50 PM
 #64

If the network can't handle the load from SD then we should all just pack it in and go home.  You ain't seen nothin' yet.

I'm quite sure the paypal network won't even stand a chance to handle the 1/10 load from Nasdaq exchange

I never understand why a game with lot's of bot's transaction should use the world bank's transaction network

justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400
Merit: 1006



View Profile
March 08, 2013, 04:07:44 PM
 #65

Single-satoshi outputs would cost more in fees to send than the amount of the output, which is why no sane person would ever spend such an amount. For this reason they effectively can never be pruned.
You keep saying this no matter how many times someone points out that it isn't true.
anarchy
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 102
Merit: 10


View Profile
March 08, 2013, 04:08:25 PM
 #66

Someone please ban this mrbigg troll
conv3rsion
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 310
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 08, 2013, 04:08:29 PM
 #67

Yup, that's how Bitcoin works. So what? SD paid a transaction fee to do that.

No, it's not how Bitcoin works. When you send an ordinary transaction, it's outputs only need to stay in the block chain while they are unspent. After someone spends the entire output, it can be pruned (removed from disk). Until that point it needs to stay in long term storage. Single-satoshi outputs would cost more in fees to send than the amount of the output, which is why no sane person would ever spend such an amount. For this reason they effectively can never be pruned.


Yea, it is how Bitcoin works. That's exactly WHY it works. Bitcoin is a protocol. Pruning is a client implementation. Does this make pruning techniques less efficient, yup sure does.

JusticeForYou
VIP
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 490
Merit: 271


"Blockchain is the next big thing after Internet"


View Profile
March 08, 2013, 04:10:02 PM
 #68

It's not a flaw, it's competition complaining about the competition.

The best way to resolve is to increase competition.

I see SD as a anti-monopoly service. It will prevent mining consortiums from dictating their fees. They will try to do it never the less but the less greedy will gladly take less.

An extended backlog of confirms will ultimately have to lead to voluntarily reducing of difficulty through consensus. Find the 'sweet' spot.

Adapt or perish.


5░░░░░░░▄▄▄▄▄▄
░░░░▄██████████▄
░░░██████████████
░░██████▐▌██████
█████░░░░░░░▀█████
██████▄▄░░▄▄░░██████
████████░░▀▀▄██████
████████░░▄▄▄░░█████
██████▀▀░░▀▀▀░░█████
█████░░░░░░░░█████
░░██████▐▌██████
░░░██████████████
░░░░▀██████████▀
░░░░░░░▀▀▀▀▀▀
░░░
░░░░░░░▄▄▄▄▄▄
░░░░▄██████████▄
░░░██████████████
░░██████▐▌██████
█████░░░░░░░▀█████
██████▄▄░░▄▄░░██████
████████░░▀▀▄██████
████████░░▄▄▄░░█████
██████▀▀░░▀▀▀░░█████
█████░░░░░░░░█████
░░██████▐▌██████
░░░██████████████
░░░░▀██████████▀
░░░░░░░▀▀▀▀▀▀
░░░
Jutarul
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 994
Merit: 1000



View Profile
March 08, 2013, 04:10:14 PM
 #69

Yup, that's how Bitcoin works. So what? SD paid a transaction fee to do that.
...they effectively can never be pruned.
kinda reminds me of the nuclear waste debate. It's a future liability which is not captured by current transaction fees.

Would a simple change to the propagation rule fix this problem: ?

do not propagate if:
fee > unspent transaction output.

This would prevent satoshi-type unspent transaction outputs, unless they are introduced with zero fees. And those should be filtered out heavily in a transaction fee governed market. (Although such a rule would probably have collateral damage for other valid transaction models, e.g. colored coins)

The ASICMINER Project https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=99497.0
"The way you solve things is by making it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing.", Milton Friedman
anarchy
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 102
Merit: 10


View Profile
March 08, 2013, 04:11:38 PM
 #70

You are basically calling for censorship based on your personal preferences, disguising them under "common good" myth. This strategy is very dishonest and reminds me of shitload of propaganda that is poured on every single person all around the world for the last several thousand years.



If anywhere this should be solved at the protocol level, not at the social level. The bitcoin system should be completely agnostic about the intention of a transaction.  All it should be concerned about is the total cost of a transaction, both to the miners and relay nodes.

If people start using patched clients to block transactions based on perceived intentions, we are going to get into a huge mess.  

You guys have restored my faith in the forum community, very well said Smiley

I fully agree, it's also great to see smart people like you having an influence. Bitcoin is the greatest invention mankind has made, and it will eventually free us from oppression, people don't realise it yet. Bitcoin's essence should never be touched.
kakobrekla
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714
Merit: 500


Psi laju, karavani prolaze.


View Profile
March 08, 2013, 04:13:04 PM
 #71

All this bitching makes me wanna spam the blockchain myself, just to point out that removing SD is no solution.

misterbigg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064
Merit: 1001



View Profile
March 08, 2013, 04:19:00 PM
 #72

kinda reminds me of the nuclear waste debate. It's a future liability which is not captured by current transaction fees.

Would a simple change to the propagation rule fix this problem: ?

do not propagate if:
fee > unspent transaction output.

Yeah good analogy. It's exactly like nuclear waste.

Your suggestion is a good one; However, it is vulnerable to miners defecting. It would be in the short-term best interests for an individual miner or pool to just comment that line out.
Jutarul
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 994
Merit: 1000



View Profile
March 08, 2013, 04:26:19 PM
 #73

kinda reminds me of the nuclear waste debate. It's a future liability which is not captured by current transaction fees.

Would a simple change to the propagation rule fix this problem: ?

do not propagate if:
fee > unspent transaction output.

Yeah good analogy. It's exactly like nuclear waste.

Your suggestion is a good one; However, it is vulnerable to miners defecting. It would be in the short-term best interests for an individual miner or pool to just comment that line out.

Well at least it would be simple enough to quickly fix the code and maybe offer it as a command line option - and probably has a huge impact. Then SD needs to fix their problem...

But before implementing that, is there any conceivable reason why somebody may want to send a transaction where the fee is higher than the unspent transaction output (colored coins aside)?

The ASICMINER Project https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=99497.0
"The way you solve things is by making it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing.", Milton Friedman
misterbigg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064
Merit: 1001



View Profile
March 08, 2013, 04:53:07 PM
 #74

Sweet! Transaction dust = Lost coins = Money supply deflation = more money for me! Cheesy

Bob Loblaw is that you?
aruca
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 13
Merit: 0


View Profile
March 08, 2013, 05:10:50 PM
 #75

Wait, hold on.

You're saying one satoshi outputs are "un-spendable."

I think this is not true.

Whenever you spend coins, the inputs are not required to come from a single source.

Let's say I have an address where my balance is 0.01 BTC.

However, for whatever reason, every single transaction that was sent to that address was a single satoshi.

Would that bit cent be un-spendable?

I don't think so.

The transaction would just have one million inputs.

This transaction would definitely be *huge* in size in bytes compared to a normal transaction, but it should still be valid.

It might take a really long time to get a confirmation as well, since I think it'd get a really low priority due to its low amount sent and high size in bytes.
jubalix
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2338
Merit: 1013


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2013, 05:22:26 PM
 #76

If a small website that 99.9999999% of the world population don't even know about is causing a problem for Bitcoin, then what hope do we have. You don't fix a problem in a p2p payment network by politely (or impolitely in this case) asking them to please stop. That's, of course, assuming that this even IS a problem. I agree with Mike. They're the only site that's really testing the real world (as in wide adoption) stability of the network.

If SDice is considered an attack on Bitcoin, Then Bitcoin itself is flawed.

EDIT: I will add, I cannot for the life of me understand why people are willing to play a negative EV game, with a currency that was worth $13 2 months ago and $42 today... It defies all logic. 

This beats the Shi% out om too....? I mean maybe lotto with a devaluating currency just for fun....the only explanation can be

[1] evolutionary logic short circuit of gamble pleasure outweighs rational odds, and this is osrta what the human race had to do to get a head be able to understand they would most likely die but do the experiment anyway, until one you could find a way to make it work, or a least shut out all possibility, a curious mixture or being able to reason something out then ingnore that reason....this sort thing may drive a AI attempt crazy

[2] they though BT was going down, or will go down

Admitted Practicing Lawyer::BTC/Crypto Specialist. B.Engineering/B.Laws

https://www.binance.com/?ref=10062065
phelix
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1012



View Profile
March 08, 2013, 05:24:10 PM
 #77

new title:
Quote
Re: Newly Discovered Flaw, Could KILL Bitcoin!

come on this is pure FUD

Did you sell your coins and would like the price to drop now?
misterbigg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064
Merit: 1001



View Profile
March 08, 2013, 05:31:41 PM
 #78

You're saying one satoshi outputs are "un-spendable."

They are not technically unspendable but economically unspendable, because they cost more in fees than the amount that is being sent. No rational actor would bother to transmit a 1-satoshi amount. Except for SatoshiDICE of course, since it is using the blockchain as a cheap "messaging service."
evoorhees
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008
Merit: 1009


Democracy is the original 51% attack


View Profile
March 08, 2013, 05:33:39 PM
 #79

...How about just not sending dust to notify losing bets?
That would reduce the SD transactions by about 25%. Will that satisfy you and solve the "problem"? Or will this discussion flare up again when SD grows by a subsequent 33% a month later?

Again it's not the volume of transactions that is the sole problem, it's the unprunable and unspendable outputs that are sent for losing bets. They will be carried around in every copy of the block, in perpetuity, and can never be realistically spent (since it would cost more in fees than the actual amount).



How do you not see that this is a problem with the Bitcoin protocol and not SatoshiDice?? You are focusing on a symptom instead of the disease. The analogy of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic is relevant.

The devs need to fix the protocol issue, if there is one. I'm happy to donate funds from SD to assist the devs in this endeavor if that would be helpful.
misterbigg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064
Merit: 1001



View Profile
March 08, 2013, 05:37:16 PM
 #80

How do you not see that this is a problem with the Bitcoin protocol and not SatoshiDice?...The devs need to fix the protocol issue

Yes, I agree that this is currently a vulnerability of Bitcoin and it most definitely needs to be resolved. A simple solution is not so apparent. You're quite well versed with Bitcoin intricacies, can you propose a solution? But in the meanwhile, wouldn't it be helpful for SatoshiDICE to cut down on the spam while we get this thing fixed?

Just because Bitcoin has a weakness doesn't make it right to exploit it for personal gain.

There's an ocean of difference between doing what's right for you, versus doing what's right.
evoorhees
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008
Merit: 1009


Democracy is the original 51% attack


View Profile
March 08, 2013, 07:04:07 PM
 #81

How do you not see that this is a problem with the Bitcoin protocol and not SatoshiDice?...The devs need to fix the protocol issue

Yes, I agree that this is currently a vulnerability of Bitcoin and it most definitely needs to be resolved. A simple solution is not so apparent. You're quite well versed with Bitcoin intricacies, can you propose a solution? But in the meanwhile, wouldn't it be helpful for SatoshiDICE to cut down on the spam while we get this thing fixed?

Just because Bitcoin has a weakness doesn't make it right to exploit it for personal gain.

There's an ocean of difference between doing what's right for you, versus doing what's right.

Unfortunately I am not well-versed in the technical intricacies of Bitcoin, and I'm not a programmer. I have huge respect for those who are, and thus I'm happy to contribute to their work by donating some money to assist them. If developers come to me and say they have a good solution, I'll fund it.

Next, I'm not convinced that there even is a weakness. Bitcoin seems to be working beautifully, and already many are thinking about how to scale it even more. These are the growing pains of such a system, and is a sign of surging strength, not weakness. So I do not see that SD is "exploiting" anything... rather it's simply using Bitcoin, following the rules, paying more transactions fees than everyone else combined, and demonstrating to the world how awesome Bitcoin is for gambling.

Yes, SD is profiting from this, but so is the Bitcoin system itself as adoption grows and these growing pains are worked out sooner rather than later.

SatoshiDice is a spark which is driving interest from the entire gambling industry into Bitcoin. Certainly it puts stress on the system, but a system that's used is a system that's stressed, and the Bitcoin economy is far healthier for it.

We cannot advance Bitcoin by asking anyone who is putting stress on the system to "please refrain." I do not think Bitcoin is so delicate and poorly constructed as you. It can handle SatoshiDice, it can handle far more than SatoshiDice, and I congratulate and encourage everyone else out there who is building infrastructure and putting stress on this system.

alexkravets
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 209
Merit: 100



View Profile WWW
March 08, 2013, 08:08:39 PM
 #82

So far there's been no comments in this thread by actual developers, which is not unexpected because such threads are not very likely to converge on any kind of rough consensus for a technical solution. 

This is because actual developers hang out this this forum instead https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls simply because that forum is almost all "signal" and this forum is almost all "noise" from their perspective.

MisterBigg, being a competent C++ programmer that I know you to be, simply submitting a sub-10 line pull request to alter the logic to prioritize transactions unlikely to ever be economically spendable with clear explanation of its logic, test scenario, etc would actually have about a 1000 times more chance of actually making a difference out there in the "real world" of code ... rather than in this talking shop of bitcointalk.org.

Cheers ... :-)

Alex Kravets         http://twitter.com/alexkravets
conv3rsion
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 310
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 08, 2013, 08:41:38 PM
 #83



SatoshiDice is a spark which is driving interest from the entire gambling industry into Bitcoin. Certainly it puts stress on the system, but a system that's used is a system that's stressed, and the Bitcoin economy is far healthier for it.




I'm 100% positive that the value of my bitcoins has gone up because of SD's success and interest from the gambling industry that has come from that. So you've made myself, and everyone else who has bitcoins, money. And you've helped us to understand issues that need to be dealt with in the protocol. Thank you for that.
camolist
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896
Merit: 1000


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2013, 08:55:58 PM
 #84

If a small website that 99.9999999% of the world population don't even know about is causing a problem for Bitcoin, then what hope do we have. You don't fix a problem in a p2p payment network by politely (or impolitely in this case) asking them to please stop. That's, of course, assuming that this even IS a problem. I agree with Mike. They're the only site that's really testing the real world (as in wide adoption) stability of the network.

If SDice is considered an attack on Bitcoin, Then Bitcoin itself is flawed.

EDIT: I will add, I cannot for the life of me understand why people are willing to play a negative EV game, with a currency that was worth $13 2 months ago and $42 today... It defies all logic. 

this.

isn't micro transactions a feature in bitcoin? send small amounts low fees unlike credit cards?

using bitcoin to make a provably fair casino? seems to be a perfect match

if 1 in 100 million people in the world using satoshi dice kills bitcoin there is something wrong with bitcoin

(not a player or investor in satoshi dice but this just seems like common sense)

mobile4ever
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 546
Merit: 500


View Profile
March 08, 2013, 09:04:54 PM
 #85


This is because actual developers hang out this this forum instead https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls simply because that forum is almost all "signal" and this forum is almost all "noise" from their perspective.


You are right. Programmers rule in the world of software money (bitcoin).  Thanks for the link and more impetus to learn programming.

alexkravets
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 209
Merit: 100



View Profile WWW
March 08, 2013, 09:06:42 PM
 #86

The also hang out in #bitcoin-dev IRC channel on Freenode

Alex Kravets         http://twitter.com/alexkravets
misterbigg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064
Merit: 1001



View Profile
March 08, 2013, 09:26:25 PM
Last edit: March 08, 2013, 09:42:43 PM by misterbigg
 #87

isn't micro transactions a feature in bitcoin? send small amounts low fees unlike credit cards?

Yeah when we talk small amounts we're talking about pennies, or maybe a fraction of a penny like 1/10 of a cent. But 1 satoshi = $0.00000045. Is this really useful?

Quote
using bitcoin to make a provably fair casino? seems to be a perfect match

Yep, I agree and there is no question that SatoshiDICE has done some great things. But they are also pushing a burden of disproportionate costs onto all full nodes that exist or will ever exist in the future. No other Bitcoin enterprise behaves this way.

Quote
if 1 in 100 million people in the world using satoshi dice kills bitcoin there is something wrong with bitcoin

I wouldn't say that it is going to "kill" Bitcoin but it is definitely make running a full node more expensive, and in a way that doesn't grow the Bitcoin user base in proportion to its cost. It has also been driving up transaction fees, again in a way that doesn't really help the network.

All that SatoshiDICE needs to do is pick one of several options for changing the way it sends unspendable outputs to notify gamblers of losing bets. There isn't even a problem with the winning bets, since those are spendable. It's just the losing bets which have a miner's fee and a microscopic output (1 satoshi). Here are a couple of options:

1) Require gamblers to include a tiny additional deposit of 0.01 BTC which is always refunded regardless of a win or loss

2) Send an amount equal to the transaction fee back to losing bets, instead of sending 1 satoshi.

3) Stop sending betting loss confirmations

If you pay any attention to what the developers have to say, you realize that Bitcoin is still not even full release software, it is in beta. The current version is 0.8. It was said that we will probably get up to 0.20 (zero point twenty) before we have a 1.0 release. There are still many to-do items before they consider Bitcoin to be at a level where it is ready for the masses.

It does Bitcoin a disservice for SatoshiDICE to place the network under the constant load of it's unprunable transaction spam in it's current beta state. Sure, if you want to think of it is as doing us a "favor", then okay they flooded the network and now we have some hard data. So, can SatoshiDICE please turn the spam off for a few weeks while the developers get things sorted out? After they make the necessary fixes then SatoshiDICE can turn it back on. That's being a good citizen during the beta stage.
K1773R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792
Merit: 1008


/dev/null


View Profile
March 08, 2013, 10:10:30 PM
 #88

"SatoshiDICE" notifies gambling addicts of losing bets by sending them a transaction containing 1 satoshi back to their original address. A regular transaction fee is also included in this transaction. The problem is that this produces an unspendable and unprunable output.
u can spend them, wait some time (so they arent "new coins" anymore, dunno how many blocks that would be) and send them even with 0 fees trough the raw tx API.

[GPG Public Key]  [Devcoin Builds]  [BBQCoin Builds]  [Multichain Blockexplorer]  [Multichain Blockexplorer - PoS Coins]  [Ufasoft Miner Linux Builds]
BTC/DVC/TRC/FRC: 1K1773RbXRZVRQSSXe9N6N2MUFERvrdu6y ANC/XPM AK1773RTmRKtvbKBCrUu95UQg5iegrqyeA NMC: NK1773Rzv8b4ugmCgX789PbjewA9fL9Dy1 LTC: LKi773RBuPepQH8E6Zb1ponoCvgbU7hHmd EMC: EK1773RxUes1HX1YAGMZ1xVYBBRUCqfDoF BQC: bK1773R1APJz4yTgRkmdKQhjhiMyQpJgfN
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1000


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
March 08, 2013, 10:13:29 PM
 #89

misterbigg, a good level-headed and polite summary

I certainly am not against SatoshiDice as a business or in principle, there are just a few simple house-keeping changes which would be a MAJOR help to bitcoin. Erik loves Bitcoin so I hope he takes these comments on-board.

...Here are a couple of options:

1) Require gamblers to include a tiny additional deposit of 0.01 BTC which is always refunded regardless of a win or loss

2) Send an amount equal to the transaction fee back to losing bets, instead of sending 1 satoshi.

3) Stop sending betting loss confirmations


There IS also lesson for the devs, because SD shows a potential attack vector which a malicious Central Bank (for example) could use to choke the Bitcoin network for long periods of time.

Elwar
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3486
Merit: 2214


Viva Ut Vivas


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2013, 10:28:57 PM
 #90

Maybe everyone should stop using Bitcoin to help out the miners at this early point of Bitcoin's evolution.

We can start using it again once we have enough transactions where this problem will not exist.

First seastead company actually selling sea homes: Ocean Builders https://ocean.builders  Of course we accept bitcoin.
Peter Lambert
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 500

It's all fun and games until somebody loses an eye


View Profile
March 08, 2013, 10:33:53 PM
 #91

I think calling the amounts "unspendable" is not technically correct - provided an unspent output is old enough even one that contains a single Satoshi can be spent (at least that is the case currently AFAIA).


I don't see why these are unspendable? Couldn't you just have more incoming bitcoins land on that address, and then spend them as a group?

Use CoinBR to trade bitcoin stocks: CoinBR.com

The best place for betting with bitcoin: BitBet.us
K1773R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792
Merit: 1008


/dev/null


View Profile
March 08, 2013, 10:37:39 PM
 #92

I think calling the amounts "unspendable" is not technically correct - provided an unspent output is old enough even one that contains a single Satoshi can be spent (at least that is the case currently AFAIA).


I don't see why these are unspendable? Couldn't you just have more incoming bitcoins land on that address, and then spend them as a group?
u could, but the TX is getting big and you would have to pay a higher fee for it, altough u still can do it for free. scroll up or click here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=150493.msg1601755#msg1601755

[GPG Public Key]  [Devcoin Builds]  [BBQCoin Builds]  [Multichain Blockexplorer]  [Multichain Blockexplorer - PoS Coins]  [Ufasoft Miner Linux Builds]
BTC/DVC/TRC/FRC: 1K1773RbXRZVRQSSXe9N6N2MUFERvrdu6y ANC/XPM AK1773RTmRKtvbKBCrUu95UQg5iegrqyeA NMC: NK1773Rzv8b4ugmCgX789PbjewA9fL9Dy1 LTC: LKi773RBuPepQH8E6Zb1ponoCvgbU7hHmd EMC: EK1773RxUes1HX1YAGMZ1xVYBBRUCqfDoF BQC: bK1773R1APJz4yTgRkmdKQhjhiMyQpJgfN
Peter Lambert
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 500

It's all fun and games until somebody loses an eye


View Profile
March 08, 2013, 10:47:18 PM
 #93

I think calling the amounts "unspendable" is not technically correct - provided an unspent output is old enough even one that contains a single Satoshi can be spent (at least that is the case currently AFAIA).


I don't see why these are unspendable? Couldn't you just have more incoming bitcoins land on that address, and then spend them as a group?
u could, but the TX is getting big and you would have to pay a higher fee for it, altough u still can do it for free. scroll up or click here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=150493.msg1601755#msg1601755

If you can send transactions for free, is there any reason you would not be able to send a big transactions with a reduced fee?

Just wondering: Is the size of the bitcoin transactionss cumulative, or does it reset after each transaction? What I mean is if I take a bunch of small amounts and send them to one address, that would be a big transaction, but if I then send the coins from the one address to somewhere else, does that also make a big transaction or does it become a small transaction because it is from only one address now?

Use CoinBR to trade bitcoin stocks: CoinBR.com

The best place for betting with bitcoin: BitBet.us
misterbigg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064
Merit: 1001



View Profile
March 08, 2013, 10:57:48 PM
 #94

I don't see why these are unspendable? Couldn't you just have more incoming bitcoins land on that address, and then spend them as a group?

Okay, you'll have to forgive me if my technical analysis is incorrect but I believe that when you spend an aggregation of coins, there needs to be a separate input coming from the chain of each separate coinbase. That means that when you combine the single satoshi with some other coins there will be at least two txin (I think). The problem is that the extra txin will incur additional per-byte transaction fees which can only be greater than the size of the input (1 satoshi in this case).

It seems that no matter what you do, the added fees required to process the single satoshi will always be larger than one satoshi. Considerably larger, even a 10 satoshi output cannot be spent.

In fact I believe that SD changed the amount it sends from 1 to a small random number between 1 and 5 because some of the mining pools dropped transactions with just one satoshi output.

If you can send transactions for free, is there any reason you would not be able to send a big transactions with a reduced fee?

Free transactions are only relayed or included in a block if the coins are of sufficient age, to prevent attackers from flooding the network with messages.
K1773R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792
Merit: 1008


/dev/null


View Profile
March 08, 2013, 11:10:28 PM
 #95

I think calling the amounts "unspendable" is not technically correct - provided an unspent output is old enough even one that contains a single Satoshi can be spent (at least that is the case currently AFAIA).


I don't see why these are unspendable? Couldn't you just have more incoming bitcoins land on that address, and then spend them as a group?
u could, but the TX is getting big and you would have to pay a higher fee for it, altough u still can do it for free. scroll up or click here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=150493.msg1601755#msg1601755

If you can send transactions for free, is there any reason you would not be able to send a big transactions with a reduced fee?

Just wondering: Is the size of the bitcoin transactionss cumulative, or does it reset after each transaction? What I mean is if I take a bunch of small amounts and send them to one address, that would be a big transaction, but if I then send the coins from the one address to somewhere else, does that also make a big transaction or does it become a small transaction because it is from only one address now?
i once did send a TX which was around 53KB if remember this correct with 0 satoshis as feed, i could have set the fee to 0.0005 and it would still work. altough u would need to use the rawtx API, otherwise u cant do that.

[GPG Public Key]  [Devcoin Builds]  [BBQCoin Builds]  [Multichain Blockexplorer]  [Multichain Blockexplorer - PoS Coins]  [Ufasoft Miner Linux Builds]
BTC/DVC/TRC/FRC: 1K1773RbXRZVRQSSXe9N6N2MUFERvrdu6y ANC/XPM AK1773RTmRKtvbKBCrUu95UQg5iegrqyeA NMC: NK1773Rzv8b4ugmCgX789PbjewA9fL9Dy1 LTC: LKi773RBuPepQH8E6Zb1ponoCvgbU7hHmd EMC: EK1773RxUes1HX1YAGMZ1xVYBBRUCqfDoF BQC: bK1773R1APJz4yTgRkmdKQhjhiMyQpJgfN
alexkravets
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 209
Merit: 100



View Profile WWW
March 08, 2013, 11:14:05 PM
 #96

+1 for MisterBigg's last post

Alex Kravets         http://twitter.com/alexkravets
Mosper
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 100



View Profile
March 08, 2013, 11:37:50 PM
 #97

So for the currency who prides itself on being "cheaper than credit/debit" you foresee and look forward to when transaction fees are so high it is actually prohibitive to high volume usage? Bitcoin is a neat concept and I'm enjoying learning about it/getting into the whole scene but reading some of the stuff you guys post makes my head hurt. I'm not sure half of you understand the concepts you hold in such high esteem when talking about the benefits of bitcoin in the first place. Seems like most of you are having trouble reconciling the fact that basically everything which helps bitcoin reach its worldwide goals actually hurts you as a single user of low financial power. You will be the same ineffective actor that you are in the fiat world because people who are more skilled and have grasped more power and made more money will push you to the side just like they do now. The vision you all seem to have of how this Satoshi "problem" should be handled is a not-so-free market once it negatively impacts you or you fail to be the one benefiting from a position of advantage over others.

Just keep hitting the reset button until you land on top right? I mean statistically it has to happen sometime huh? No, probably not.

Me? I'm just the cynical voice floating in the sea of unchecked optimism.
Elwar
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3486
Merit: 2214


Viva Ut Vivas


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2013, 11:43:20 PM
 #98


Free transactions are only relayed or included in a block if the coins are of sufficient age, to prevent attackers from flooding the network with messages.


So if someone wants their 1 Satoshi they can just send it as a free transaction. Once it is of a sufficient age they will be sent.

Problem solved.

First seastead company actually selling sea homes: Ocean Builders https://ocean.builders  Of course we accept bitcoin.
misterbigg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064
Merit: 1001



View Profile
March 08, 2013, 11:50:14 PM
 #99

So if someone wants their 1 Satoshi they can just send it as a free transaction. Once it is of a sufficient age they will be sent.

Yeah for a 1-satoshi amount it would have to age for one or two thousand years. During that time, every miner that ever lives has to store a copy of the transaction even though it can't be spent.

Plus, by that time nodes will no longer relay free tx because miners wont include them in blocks (since there's no fee). This will happen well before the subsidy drops to zero.
stdset
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 572
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 09, 2013, 12:51:35 AM
 #100

misterbigg +1 for discussing this important issue in peaceful, patient and respectful way.

Title is a bit misleading though, but attracts much attention  Wink

And btw, it's hard not to notice, that HDDs capacity growth rate significantly decreased last years. As far as I remember, the last HDD I bought, I bought in the first quarter of 2010. It was a 2Tb HDD for about $100. Now, 3 years later, price of a 2Tb HDD is about the same. And, well, we have 4Tb ones for $300. So, I wouldn't count now on incredibly cheap future storage space.

Those, who don't even know, that low priority transactions pay fees proportional to their size (in kilobytes) should rather read more and post less.

notig
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 09, 2013, 12:53:45 AM
 #101

out of curiosity... is a reason why they wouldn't fix this because they don't think people will want to go through an extra step in creating an account, then sending funds to their site to play with?
stdset
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 572
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 09, 2013, 01:01:34 AM
 #102

out of curiosity... is a reason why they wouldn't fix this because they don't think people will want to go through an extra step in creating an account, then sending funds to their site to play with?
As far as I understand, the system now is provably honest to certain degree.
It is still possible to do some fraud IMO. Lets imagine we are SD. We want people to see, that on average say a 50% bet wins in half the times. But still, we can do some bets from our own speciall addresses which always win, therefore we are able to decrease winning rate for normal gamblers.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

00null
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 148
Merit: 100


View Profile
March 09, 2013, 01:21:53 AM
 #103

The thing is that when you lose at SD, you lose twice. First you lost the bet, and second you have to pay good money to get rid of the SD spam dust.
But I guess this will never be fixed, because Erik has too much influence on TBF and as a result on Gavins work. And with those ever raising profits he can already pay Gavin with pocket change from SD.

thebaron
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 250



View Profile
March 09, 2013, 01:26:22 AM
 #104

Satoshi Dice is helping to drive the price of Bitcoin up.

Pros....cons...
alexkravets
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 209
Merit: 100



View Profile WWW
March 09, 2013, 01:31:34 AM
 #105

Once hedge funds can funnel cash through Coinlab starting on March 22nd, THAT will become the price driver ... all this retail coin tossing around won't matter

Alex Kravets         http://twitter.com/alexkravets
doobadoo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 09, 2013, 01:37:05 AM
 #106

This is definitely a flaw.  The BTC protocol should reject any output less than the block's tx fee, or the median tx fee for the last 60 or so blocks.

"It is, quite honestly, the biggest challenge to central banking since Andrew Jackson." -evoorhees
zebedee
Donator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 668
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 09, 2013, 02:07:03 AM
 #107

"Transaction spam" is the largest issue threatening the fledgeling currency called Bitcoin. A brief synopsis of the problem:

"SatoshiDICE" notifies gambling addicts of losing bets by sending them a transaction containing 1 satoshi back to their original address. A regular transaction fee is also included in this transaction. The problem is that this produces an unspendable and unprunable output. The output is unspendable because it is so small that it would cost more in fees than it would to send. It cannot be pruned because it has to stay around in fast storage to detect double spends, even though ironically it cannot be spent (developers, let me know if this description is technically accurate).
You see, you don't really know what you're talking about and that's leading you to draw the wrong conclusions.

If I have other coins, say 4 BTC, and want to spend 1.25 BTC, it's trivial to create a transaction with 4 BTC + 1 or more single-satoshi inputs, that pays 1.25 + 2.7500000x BTC change as outputs, and pay no fees.

So not only can they be spent, they can even be spent and pruned for free.  Yes, I've done it myself.
stdset
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 572
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 09, 2013, 02:23:16 AM
 #108

So not only can they be spent, they can even be spent and pruned for free.  Yes, I've done it myself.

Good point. But an SD gambler is likely to have some thousands of single satoshi outputs. How much time it will take to spend them this way? It's like a pool with two pipes. Through one water gets in, through another gets out. And it will always be more water getting in than getting out.

Jutarul
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 994
Merit: 1000



View Profile
March 09, 2013, 02:33:39 AM
 #109

So not only can they be spent, they can even be spent and pruned for free.  Yes, I've done it myself.
you have a missing incentive structure. A gambler doesn't care about the technological implications of dust output. His main concern is economic.

To get a fee of 0.01 you need at least 10^6 satoshi inputs. So there's no economic incentive. The only thing which would help is an intelligent client which "sweeps" the satoshi output and throws it in as a fee. However, as pointed out before, in a crowded blockchain, that little bit of required extra space may cause another important transaction to be left out, so there's no free lunch.

Overall transactions which have no intent of being spent (for economic or other reasons), pollute the blockchain. We need an incentive structure to discourage that - or at least make it expensive to do so.

The ASICMINER Project https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=99497.0
"The way you solve things is by making it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing.", Milton Friedman
zebedee
Donator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 668
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 09, 2013, 03:09:25 AM
 #110

So not only can they be spent, they can even be spent and pruned for free.  Yes, I've done it myself.
you have a missing incentive structure. A gambler doesn't care about the technological implications of dust output. His main concern is economic.

To get a fee of 0.01 you need at least 10^6 satoshi inputs. So there's no economic incentive. The only thing which would help is an intelligent client which "sweeps" the satoshi output and throws it in as a fee. However, as pointed out before, in a crowded blockchain, that little bit of required extra space may cause another important transaction to be left out, so there's no free lunch.

Overall transactions which have no intent of being spent (for economic or other reasons), pollute the blockchain. We need an incentive structure to discourage that - or at least make it expensive to do so.
He's paying the fee implicitly becauser SD are paying it!  And they're making money.

Further, your mega-gambler has to bet right?  Each bet can take a prior losing satoshi, so even a gambler with a lot of bad luck needn't be building up the satoshis.  Think a little bit, this is a non-problem.

Yes the standard client software might need updating.  I mainly use electrum which makes it easy to specify what outputs to use, but any client updated to spend dust is all you need, and adding such logic is very easy.
misterbigg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064
Merit: 1001



View Profile
March 09, 2013, 03:24:23 AM
 #111

If I have other coins, say 4 BTC, and want to spend 1.25 BTC, it's trivial to create a transaction with 4 BTC + 1 or more single-satoshi inputs, that pays 1.25 + 2.7500000x BTC change as outputs, and pay no fees.

So not only can they be spent, they can even be spent and pruned for free.  Yes, I've done it myself.

First of all your trick only works once, if the 4 BTC come from a transaction output that is sufficiently aged. So it's not "free", you're consuming the limited resource (old coins in this case). You could not, for example, use the same 4 BTC again to combine another single satoshi input for "free".

Second, assuming that you did not have aged coins you would have to pay a fee. The 36 bytes for the additional input (the 1 satoshi) will drive the fee up by more than one satoshi. This is what we mean by "economically unviable to spend."
DoomDumas
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1001
Merit: 1000


Bitcoin forever !


View Profile WWW
March 09, 2013, 03:39:00 AM
 #112

This would be taking action against a problem who is only a problem due to how to network currently operates. If you remove SDice from operation, another company will take its place. We should be happy that SDice has made this flaw apparent and take action not against SDice, but at the source rather than the "cause".

+1

I'm not against SD activities at all.  Did'nt play SD, because mathematicaly, it's a lost over time.  I dont care if peoples/bots are using SD.  If not SD, few other could take their place.  It's just pointing out an issue that must/will be resolved.

Always search for solution in regards to the source of the problem.  SD using the network is'nt the source of the problem.  The Bitcoin have to be upgraded to cope with the scaling up that is incomming.  SD helped Bitcoin by showing this scaling issue soon.  It's best like it, as it gives us time to find a solution, in a civil way, to an issue that is nice to have : Bitcoin must adapt to higher volume.  Is'nt very nice issue to cope with already ? Smiley

I'm confident that we will arrive to a very good solution, for the best of the Bitcoin futur !

Meanwhile, I've increased max block size of the full node I run since late 2010 !

Happy life to all Smiley
misterbigg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064
Merit: 1001



View Profile
March 09, 2013, 03:40:33 AM
 #113

This would be taking action against a problem who is only a problem due to how to network currently operates. If you remove SDice from operation, another company will take its place.

I'm okay with that, at least we get some peace during the time in between and spare us the block chain bloat even if temporarily. And if the developers fix it before another company takes its place, all the better! But the idea that "it's okay if I do it because if I didn't, then someone else would" is morally bankrupt.

I'm all for libertarian ideals but they can only work when actors behave ethically. Sure, someone who finds a severe security hole in theory has the "right" to reveal the information right away, the "freedom of speech" to tell everyone about the flaw, but the morally correct action is to follow vulnerability reporting best practices. Inform the developers, and then after sufficient time has passed to fix the defect, reveal it to the public.

I hope this example makes it clear that even if we have the opportunity to do something, it doesn't make it right.

Explodicle
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 950
Merit: 1001


View Profile
March 09, 2013, 03:57:56 AM
 #114

What exactly is wrong with this "bloat?"
Blocks won't go over the size cap, so it's fair to clients.
SD is paying enough in fees for miners to accept, so it's fair to miners.
Speculators get slightly richer from lost coins and increased popularity.
The only people who are worse off are other senders because they now have to pay a market price instead of tips.

Isn't this what we signed up for? Transaction fees go up, subsidy goes down?
zebedee
Donator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 668
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 09, 2013, 04:12:53 AM
 #115

First of all your trick only works once, if the 4 BTC come from a transaction output that is sufficiently aged. So it's not "free", you're consuming the limited resource (old coins in this case). You could not, for example, use the same 4 BTC again to combine another single satoshi input for "free".
Yes, that's the currently agreed ruleset.  So what's the problem again?

You've gone from saying they can't be spent, to they can't be spent for 6 hours?  Come on.  And not every bet is a losing bet.  And you can spend 3 or 4 satoshis at a time.

Second, assuming that you did not have aged coins you would have to pay a fee. The 36 bytes for the additional input (the 1 satoshi) will drive the fee up by more than one satoshi. This is what we mean by "economically unviable to spend."

No, you can easily get a total of combined inputs and outputs of 6 or more without raising the cost from free.  Have you looked at what's happening in the actual blockchain, or the logic for free transactions?  And if you're paying the 0.0005 "minimum" anyway you can get away with a lot more inputs and outputs.
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1000


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
March 09, 2013, 04:21:58 AM
Last edit: March 09, 2013, 04:45:36 AM by solex
 #116

What exactly is wrong with this "bloat?"
Blocks won't go over the size cap, so it's fair to clients.
SD is paying enough in fees for miners to accept, so it's fair to miners.
Speculators get slightly richer from lost coins and increased popularity.
The only people who are worse off are other senders because they now have to pay a market price instead of tips.

Isn't this what we signed up for? Transaction fees go up, subsidy goes down?

Everyone who has accepted the spirit of Bitcoin wants a new, peer regulated currency independent of central-banks and civil-liberties-crushing government control. The next thing is they want is for Bitcoin to take some market share from the existing fiat dominated world.

Applications like SD are generating new business within the Bitcoin domain, business which could never have existed before. This is fine to a degree, but this new, internal, business is not replacing general fiat usage or taking market share from paypal or mastercard, yet it is close to 70% of Bitcoin's transaction flow. This means that only 30% of Bitcoin's processing is replacing existing real-world fiat&payments. Even this might be fine, but Bitcoin has a finite capacity at the moment, the max block size, and a further unknown block size limit which is set by the network block propagation latency and verification time (remember, only 10 mins between blocks).

There is a potential risk, which looks to me a big risk, that SD-like applications will grow to consume nearly 100% of Bitcoin's capacity. At that point the "improve the world" dream will be on life-support. There is also the problem of unspendable outputs bloating the blockchain.

We are asking that SD optimize itself to at least buy some time.

Explodicle
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 950
Merit: 1001


View Profile
March 09, 2013, 04:56:38 AM
 #117

Everyone who has accepted the spirit of Bitcoin wants a new, peer regulated currency independent of central-banks and civil-liberties-crushing government control. The next thing is they want is for Bitcoin to take some market share from the existing fiat dominated world.
Quote
There is a potential risk, which looks to me a big risk, that SD-like applications will grow to consume nearly 100% of Bitcoin's capacity. At that point the "improve the world" dream will be on life-support.
When did the spirit of Bitcoin tell you which applications are most important? Some of my dreams involve weird new inventions that weren't possible before, why should they take a backseat to direct conflict over occupied territory? If we both want the same shared resource for different ends, bidding on it seems like the fairest way to resolve our disagreement. Who knows, maybe provably fair gambling is the "killer app" for Bitcoin.

Quote
There is also the problem of unspendable outputs bloating the blockchain.
That "bloat" when maxed out will increase chain size linearly, while the cost of storage goes down exponentially. It's really an anomaly of young bitcoin that we had blocks below the cap this long - for most of bitcoin's future, the blocks should be nearly full.
salfter
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 651
Merit: 501


My PGP Key: 92C7689C


View Profile WWW
March 09, 2013, 05:14:48 AM
 #118


Free transactions are only relayed or included in a block if the coins are of sufficient age, to prevent attackers from flooding the network with messages.


So if someone wants their 1 Satoshi they can just send it as a free transaction. Once it is of a sufficient age they will be sent.

Problem solved.

You most likely wouldn't send 1 satoshi by itself. One of the free-bitcoin sources has been sending 1-satoshi payments. I combine them with mining income and other income with my CheapSweep script (google this forum for the thread). It can take a few hours for the transaction to get accepted, but I've not had one not go through yet.

Tipjars: BTC 1TipsGocnz2N5qgAm9f7JLrsMqkb3oXe2 LTC LTipsVC7XaFy9M6Zaf1aGGe8w8xVUeWFvR | My Bitcoin Note Generator | Pool Auto-Switchers: zpool MiningPoolHub NiceHash
Bitgem Resources: Pool Explorer Paper Wallet
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1000


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
March 09, 2013, 05:15:36 AM
 #119

Who knows, maybe provably fair gambling is the "killer app" for Bitcoin.

And I thought Bitcoin was a fiat-killer, the most powerful idea for the internet since the WWW.
I do hope some other people share this view...

tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 3640
Merit: 1196


View Profile
March 09, 2013, 05:45:12 AM
 #120

That "bloat" when maxed out will increase chain size linearly, while the cost of storage goes down exponentially. It's really an anomaly of young bitcoin that we had blocks below the cap this long - for most of bitcoin's future, the blocks should be nearly full.

My thought too.  As long as things are predictable I'm not terribly worried.  At least in terms of bloat, and as long as it is possible to be an infrastructure operator without spending huge amounts of money and thus limiting Bitcoin to be reliant on a handful of well capitalized entities.

Seems to me that as long as the community does not choose to fiddle with the block size, the fees will start to take care of SatoshiDice-class problems and it should remain practical for the system to be operational on the backs of a wide class of operators. 

Start monkeying with the block size and all bets are off.  Possibly this is why things are coded as they are?


sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
Explodicle
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 950
Merit: 1001


View Profile
March 09, 2013, 05:48:06 AM
 #121

Who knows, maybe provably fair gambling is the "killer app" for Bitcoin.

And I thought Bitcoin was a fiat-killer, the most powerful idea for the internet since the WWW.
I do hope some other people share this view...

Those things aren't mutually exclusive. Part of the advantage over fiat is that it's the market - not a bunch of lofty rhetoric - that decides the allocation of resources.
misterbigg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064
Merit: 1001



View Profile
March 09, 2013, 05:50:21 AM
 #122

That "bloat" when maxed out will increase chain size linearly, while the cost of storage goes down exponentially. It's really an anomaly of young bitcoin that we had blocks below the cap this long - for most of bitcoin's future, the blocks should be nearly full.

Seems to me that as long as the community does not choose to fiddle with the block size, the fees will start to take care of SatoshiDice-class problems and it should remain practical for the system to be operational on the backs of a wide class of operators. 

You didn't read. Sure, the blocks are full but the problem is that the SatoshiDICE losing confirmations are unspendable and unprunable. Do you understand this distinction? A normal transaction output stays in the block chain until it is completely spent at which point it is eligible for pruning and can disappear forever. It only "bloats" the block chain until it is spent. Compare this with SD's losing confirmation, which can never be spent economically and therefore can never be pruned. Do you get it now? Why won't it read?

Explodicle
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 950
Merit: 1001


View Profile
March 09, 2013, 06:01:26 AM
Last edit: March 09, 2013, 07:03:54 AM by Explodicle
 #123

That "bloat" when maxed out will increase chain size linearly, while the cost of storage goes down exponentially. It's really an anomaly of young bitcoin that we had blocks below the cap this long - for most of bitcoin's future, the blocks should be nearly full.

Seems to me that as long as the community does not choose to fiddle with the block size, the fees will start to take care of SatoshiDice-class problems and it should remain practical for the system to be operational on the backs of a wide class of operators.  

You didn't read. Sure, the blocks are full but the problem is that the SatoshiDICE losing confirmations are unspendable and unprunable. Do you understand this distinction? A normal transaction output stays in the block chain until it is completely spent at which point it is eligible for pruning and can disappear forever. It only "bloats" the block chain until it is spent. Compare this with SD's losing confirmation, which can never be spent economically and therefore can never be pruned. Do you get it now? Why won't it read?

Even with no pruning at all the max chain size still goes up linearly over time. Do you understand that?
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 3640
Merit: 1196


View Profile
March 09, 2013, 06:04:28 AM
 #124

That "bloat" when maxed out will increase chain size linearly, while the cost of storage goes down exponentially. It's really an anomaly of young bitcoin that we had blocks below the cap this long - for most of bitcoin's future, the blocks should be nearly full.

Seems to me that as long as the community does not choose to fiddle with the block size, the fees will start to take care of SatoshiDice-class problems and it should remain practical for the system to be operational on the backs of a wide class of operators. 

You didn't read. Sure, the blocks are full but the problem is that the SatoshiDICE losing confirmations are unspendable and unprunable. Do you understand this distinction? A normal transaction output stays in the block chain until it is completely spent at which point it is eligible for pruning and can disappear forever. It only "bloats" the block chain until it is spent. Compare this with SD's losing confirmation, which can never be spent economically and therefore can never be pruned. Do you get it now? Why won't it read?


Ya, so they stay in the block chain, bloat it, and cause overhead and nuisance.  As long as it is predictable I don't see it as a terminal event.

Perhaps an attacker could use is as a DOS mechanism by deliberately leveraging the weakness at a significant monetary loss.  In that case it probably would be possible to make a fork which a significant chunk of the userbase would adopt (if that is what it took to deal with the issue.)  Or just shift to a crypto-currency solution which didn't have this weakness.


sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
zebedee
Donator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 668
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 09, 2013, 08:05:53 AM
 #125

You didn't read. Sure, the blocks are full but the problem is that the SatoshiDICE losing confirmations are unspendable and unprunable. Do you understand this distinction? A normal transaction output stays in the block chain until it is completely spent at which point it is eligible for pruning and can disappear forever. It only "bloats" the block chain until it is spent. Compare this with SD's losing confirmation, which can never be spent economically and therefore can never be pruned. Do you get it now? Why won't it read?

I've explained why this is false.  Why do you keep repeating a falsehood?  Ax(e) to grind?
niko
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 500


There is more to Bitcoin than bitcoins.


View Profile
March 09, 2013, 08:56:57 AM
Last edit: March 09, 2013, 09:42:08 AM by niko
 #126

I've never heard of anyone except evorhees being involved with SatoshiDice. You should really be careful with throwing names around like that.
Perhaps mrbigg has privileged access to non-public information? Perhaps this access has something to do with his job of posting amazingly inflamatory idiotic statements such as
Quote
Bitcoin under ATTACK now: What YOU can do to help!

Quote
Blockchain.info Colluding with SatoshiDICE to spam the network?
?

They're there, in their room.
Your mining rig is on fire, yet you're very calm.
Sukrim
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2604
Merit: 1003


View Profile
March 09, 2013, 10:18:42 AM
 #127

In recent times mrbigg has started to troll hard with half-true information, similar to a user which name was a certain greek deity who carried the world on his shoulders...

If unprunable dust output becomes a problem, there IS incentive to include "collecting" transaction in the network - you have a big transaction input, but can prune each of these from your list. Once storing your list is more expensive than block space, you include these transactions. If it isn't, it's also not a problem to store them.

Also, there is a hard cap of 21 million times 10^8 Satoshis. You can do the maths how big the maximum set of pruned unspent outputs can get and this isn't even a VERY scary number (Facebook soon will store more data than that). This is the absolute maximum EVER that can be reached, no matter the block size, no matter how many people attack BTC.

By the way, I'm also pissed that SD is using several gigabytes(!) of my HDD space on my full node and only paying miners for including these (I personally believe there should be full nodes not only run by miners or at a loss) but instead of spreading information that I bend a bit to sound informed or plausible, I'd rather release a "no-SD" patch and maybe even binaries for pools to use. There STILL is no real bitcoin client that is tailored towards miners and their needs, most clients are written for end users (=transaction generators, not transaction confirmers).

Also this issue is not new at all, since day 1 SD has been under attack by people for creating 1 Satoshi bitdust. They didn't care back then and they won't change their operations now that they risk their business. Even the "let's track SD earnings" thread in the dev forum was also partly created to also see how much they bloat the block chain.

All you do with this thread is creating a Streisand effect - every publicity is good publicity...

https://www.coinlend.org <-- automated lending at various exchanges.
https://www.bitfinex.com <-- Trade BTC for other currencies and vice versa.
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
March 09, 2013, 10:27:00 AM
 #128

Also, there is a hard cap of 21 million times 10^8 Satoshis.

I bet u r wrong. Some guys say that bitcoins can be infinitely divided.
Sukrim
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2604
Merit: 1003


View Profile
March 09, 2013, 10:54:50 AM
Last edit: March 09, 2013, 11:46:59 AM by Sukrim
 #129

This requires a hard fork, if you create more than 3 additional digits (smallest unit is 1/100th of a nBTC) you overflow an 64bit int and once this is necessary, I guess there are a LOT of other problems first.

Currently there is also a hard cap of 1 million bytes/block. There are ideas to change that, but as it currently stands these are the rules every block on the network must follow to be valid. Of course in the future BTC could be divided down to 100 decimal places, blocks could be 100GB per block etc. - all these things are (maybe?) desirable or wouldn't change the main idea behind bitcoin a lot, but still currently and without a widely accepted hard fork they are out of question.

https://www.coinlend.org <-- automated lending at various exchanges.
https://www.bitfinex.com <-- Trade BTC for other currencies and vice versa.
Killdozer
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 203
Merit: 100



View Profile
March 09, 2013, 11:33:39 AM
 #130

Quote
I bet u r wrong. Some guys say that bitcoins can be infinitely divided.
How much do you bet?

Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
March 09, 2013, 12:05:09 PM
 #131

Quote
I bet u r wrong. Some guys say that bitcoins can be infinitely divided.
How much do you bet?

21 million times 10^8 Satoshis + 1 satoshi more

 Grin
Peter Lambert
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 500

It's all fun and games until somebody loses an eye


View Profile
March 09, 2013, 12:49:19 PM
 #132

If I have other coins, say 4 BTC, and want to spend 1.25 BTC, it's trivial to create a transaction with 4 BTC + 1 or more single-satoshi inputs, that pays 1.25 + 2.7500000x BTC change as outputs, and pay no fees.

So not only can they be spent, they can even be spent and pruned for free.  Yes, I've done it myself.

First of all your trick only works once, if the 4 BTC come from a transaction output that is sufficiently aged. So it's not "free", you're consuming the limited resource (old coins in this case). You could not, for example, use the same 4 BTC again to combine another single satoshi input for "free".

Second, assuming that you did not have aged coins you would have to pay a fee. The 36 bytes for the additional input (the 1 satoshi) will drive the fee up by more than one satoshi. This is what we mean by "economically unviable to spend."


People talk about "old" coins, and "aging" coins, to avoid a fee, but what is the actual meaning of "old"? How long do they have to sit, is it a coupe blocks, a couple days, a couple weeks?

Use CoinBR to trade bitcoin stocks: CoinBR.com

The best place for betting with bitcoin: BitBet.us
mobile4ever
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 546
Merit: 500


View Profile
March 09, 2013, 01:11:19 PM
 #133



Yep, I agree and there is no question that SatoshiDICE has done some great things. But they are also pushing a burden of disproportionate costs onto all full nodes that exist or will ever exist in the future. No other Bitcoin enterprise behaves this way.


All that SatoshiDICE needs to do is pick one of several options for changing the way it sends unspendable outputs to notify gamblers of losing bets.


They could hold back those small payments and have them build up until such time as the receiver wanted to withdraw them.


Ditto on bitcoin is "still in beta" - we are all still "early adopters".
Mageant
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1145
Merit: 1001



View Profile WWW
March 09, 2013, 01:16:12 PM
 #134

I think this "problem" is only temproary will fix itself when the price for transactions go up.

This could happen when we start hitting the hard limit of 1 MB per block.

cjgames.com
crazy_rabbit
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001


RUM AND CARROTS: A PIRATE LIFE FOR ME


View Profile
March 09, 2013, 01:28:28 PM
 #135

Won't the problem solve itself when 1 bitcoin is worth 1 million dollars and that tiny little bit of transaction "spam" suddenly becomes very valuable, and miners lower fees in competition to handle the vast bitcoin traffic?

more or less retired.
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
March 09, 2013, 01:31:05 PM
 #136

Quote
Newly Discovered Flaw, Could KILL Bitcoin!

I'm afraid Bitcoin #1 is already dead. The only questions we should discuss:

1. How long can we pretend that everything OK?
2. What is the plan for moving on to Bitcoin #2?
conspirosphere.tk
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2352
Merit: 1064


Bitcoin is antisemitic


View Profile
March 09, 2013, 01:46:33 PM
 #137

I'm afraid Bitcoin #1 is already dead. The only questions we should discuss:

1. How long can we pretend that everything OK?
2. What is the plan for moving on to Bitcoin #2?

3. When its price is going to crash? Deads in the water didn't use to be so expensive.
SalvorHardin
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 73
Merit: 10


View Profile
March 09, 2013, 01:48:51 PM
 #138

This is a re-post of my comment from the other thread.

I am not sure why no one has mentioned it here.  But starting today, Satoshi dice already changed its method of sending out 1 satoshi for confirming losing bet.  Instead, they are now sending out 0.5% of bet amount back for losing bets, regardless of bet size.  Given that minimum bet is 0.01 BTC, now all Satoshi Dice losing bet tx starts at 5000 satoshi and up.  I presume that SD changed its policy due to the introduction of SD filter patch.

Therefore, Satoshi Dice now absorbs all tx fee, and return 0.5% of bet amount, even for minimum bet.  Previously, it will deduct a tx fee first and send you 1 satoshi.  So you need to bet at least 0.2 BTC or so, to get 0.5 mbtc back.  But now even 0.01 BTC minimum bet gives you at least 5000 satoshi back.  I presume the change is made today because of all the heat and the patch here.
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
March 09, 2013, 01:49:36 PM
 #139

I'm afraid Bitcoin #1 is already dead. The only questions we should discuss:

1. How long can we pretend that everything OK?
2. What is the plan for moving on to Bitcoin #2?

3. When its price is going to crash? Deads in the water didn't use to be so expensive.

When? When most of traders realize that Bitcoin has a serious flaw.
Soros Shorts
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1615
Merit: 1003



View Profile
March 09, 2013, 01:59:40 PM
 #140

This requires a hard fork, if you create more than 3 additional digits (smallest unit is 1/100th of a nBTC) you overflow an 64bit int and once this is necessary, I guess there are a LOT of other problems first.
If you plan for it now to happen in 20 years it does not need to be a hard fork if 99.9% of the clients have been updated to expect it. It is not as though there is a current need for something smaller than a Satoshi. Also if you are worried about performance problems, I would bet that by then the ALU in your watch can do native 1024-bit int arithmetic operations.
Sukrim
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2604
Merit: 1003


View Profile
March 09, 2013, 02:17:53 PM
 #141

Also if you are worried about performance problems, I would bet that by then the ALU in your watch can do native 1024-bit int arithmetic operations.
How much are you willing to bet and whom are you allowing to escrow this? I'd go with up to 10 BTC against this statement, if it is formulated properly. Your move!

https://www.coinlend.org <-- automated lending at various exchanges.
https://www.bitfinex.com <-- Trade BTC for other currencies and vice versa.
misterbigg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064
Merit: 1001



View Profile
March 09, 2013, 02:30:01 PM
 #142

People talk about "old" coins, and "aging" coins, to avoid a fee, but what is the actual meaning of "old"? How long do they have to sit, is it a coupe blocks, a couple days, a couple weeks?

It's based on the number of blocks. I'm not sure about the actual number but I think it's on the order of weeks. The reason that age matters is to prevent relay spam where someone just transfers one satoshi back and forth between two addresses without a fee.
misterbigg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064
Merit: 1001



View Profile
March 09, 2013, 02:36:22 PM
Last edit: March 09, 2013, 02:57:17 PM by misterbigg
 #143

This is a re-post of my comment from the other thread.

I am not sure why no one has mentioned it here.  But starting today, Satoshi dice already changed its method of sending out 1 satoshi for confirming losing bet.  Instead, they are now sending out 0.5% of bet amount back for losing bets, regardless of bet size.  Given that minimum bet is 0.01 BTC, now all Satoshi Dice losing bet tx starts at 5000 satoshi and up.  I presume that SD changed its policy due to the introduction of SD filter patch.

Therefore, Satoshi Dice now absorbs all tx fee, and return 0.5% of bet amount, even for minimum bet.  Previously, it will deduct a tx fee first and send you 1 satoshi.  So you need to bet at least 0.2 BTC or so, to get 0.5 mbtc back.  But now even 0.01 BTC minimum bet gives you at least 5000 satoshi back.  I presume the change is made today because of all the heat and the patch here.

Hallelujah!!! Can you point me to a tx in the Blockchain and help me understand the outputs and how to verify this? For example:

https://blockchain.info/tx/6e0092ec8abca3ec3df5edbdf4c759024554d8e43c2f1956a3248fe1e6e664f6

Is this a new losing bet confirmation?

FYI 5,000 Satoshi is still considered dust by developers.

SalvorHardin
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 73
Merit: 10


View Profile
March 09, 2013, 03:35:56 PM
 #144

This is a re-post of my comment from the other thread.

I am not sure why no one has mentioned it here.  But starting today, Satoshi dice already changed its method of sending out 1 satoshi for confirming losing bet.  Instead, they are now sending out 0.5% of bet amount back for losing bets, regardless of bet size.  Given that minimum bet is 0.01 BTC, now all Satoshi Dice losing bet tx starts at 5000 satoshi and up.  I presume that SD changed its policy due to the introduction of SD filter patch.

Therefore, Satoshi Dice now absorbs all tx fee, and return 0.5% of bet amount, even for minimum bet.  Previously, it will deduct a tx fee first and send you 1 satoshi.  So you need to bet at least 0.2 BTC or so, to get 0.5 mbtc back.  But now even 0.01 BTC minimum bet gives you at least 5000 satoshi back.  I presume the change is made today because of all the heat and the patch here.

Hallelujah!!! Can you point me to a tx in the Blockchain and help me understand the outputs and how to verify this? For example:

https://blockchain.info/tx/6e0092ec8abca3ec3df5edbdf4c759024554d8e43c2f1956a3248fe1e6e664f6

Is this a new losing bet confirmation?

FYI 5,000 Satoshi is still considered dust by developers.


Yes, that's a good example of new losing bet confirmation.  There are plenty more at SD's website under Results or Unconfirmed.  You can observe the betting action of the owner of your tx sample https://blockchain.info/address/12AKJqjcwX85gaV4veHQFm4ZbsWD1hNPPAf.  Notice how SD is now confirming losing bet by sending back a flat 0.5% of bet amount, without any fees deducted upfront. 

As for 0.01 BTC size bet, they are typical for the really low odd bet like "less than 1".  But most of SD action is taking place in the 48% to 50%, with some in the 24% and 36%.  So most of betting size are larger than 0.01 BTC.  Though obviously people who run bots or martingales would still use 0.01 BTC as standard starting bet, but typically the tx fees would simply kill you over time except for those betting on the really low odd bet, like "less than 1".
misterbigg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064
Merit: 1001



View Profile
March 09, 2013, 03:40:59 PM
 #145

Okay so there has been considerable improvement?
SalvorHardin
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 73
Merit: 10


View Profile
March 09, 2013, 04:11:19 PM
 #146

Okay so there has been considerable improvement?


If you want my honest opinion, unfortunately no.  In fact, I expect the betting with Satoshi Dice may pick up in the short term since SD has effectively reduce the edge for the house, i.e. net payoffs to the gamblers has increased.  So instead of 1.9% edge for the house, those who bet the minimum amount now only have to deal with a 1.4% house edge, if SD does not lower the payoff of a winning bet in future.  

You will notice that the betting with SD has actually slow down/stablize despite recent influx of new Bitcoin users.  So by increasing the payoff of losing bets, it has slightly reduce house's edge, and this may renew gambler's interest, as gamblers always love a low house edge.

Of course, not having to deal with thousands of unspendable 1 satoshi input is a big improvement for the gamblers and miners.
misterbigg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064
Merit: 1001



View Profile
March 09, 2013, 04:18:23 PM
 #147

Okay so there has been considerable improvement?


If you want my honest opinion, unfortunately no.  In fact, I expect the betting with Satoshi Dice may pick up in the short term since SD has effectively reduce the edge for the house, i.e. net payoffs to the gamblers has increased.  So instead of 1.9% edge for the house, those who bet the minimum amount now only have to deal with a 1.4% house edge, if SD does not lower the payoff of a winning bet in future.  

You will notice that the betting with SD has actually slow down/stablize despite recent influx of new Bitcoin users.  So by increasing the payoff of losing bets, it has slightly reduce house's edge, and this may renew gambler's interest, as gamblers always love a low house edge.

Of course, not having to deal with thousands of unspendable 1 satoshi input is a big improvement for the gamblers and miners.

Alright well, let's recognize that there are two problems here:

1) Increased S.DICE transaction volume without a corresponding increase in Bitcoin adoption (likely due to bots)

2) Economically unviable transaction outputs which cost more to send than the amount they transmit

As far as #1 goes there is little that we can do about it, and there is a strong argument to be made that we shouldn't do anything about it. Eventually Bitcoin will have to handle this volume anyway. The problem is that it is driving up fees sooner than expected, which could dampen Bitcoin growth. In the short term this is the bigger problem.

But #2 is the larger long term problem, because the outputs are unprunable and they will incur an ongoing storage cost for all full nodes.

It sounds like #2 has been addressed is this the case?
TooCasual
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 114
Merit: 10


You can't be Serious?!?


View Profile
March 09, 2013, 04:36:26 PM
 #148

Let's say I shut down SatoshiDice tomorrow
How about just not sending dust to notify losing bets?

+1.  In a net shell.  Why flood the network with shit? (Dust is just not a strong enough word) . It's a waste.  Keep the fees make more BTC on the losing bets. Win-Win. As a miner/user that's my vote.

TC
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 3640
Merit: 1196


View Profile
March 09, 2013, 04:42:28 PM
 #149

I think this "problem" is only temproary will fix itself when the price for transactions go up.

This could happen when we start hitting the hard limit of 1 MB per block.

I think it still could be a problem if it is worth it to someone with deep pockets to attempt to destroy or manipulate Bitcoin at the expense of buying all or most of the transactions.  (And man would such a bidding war between parties for whom money was little of  no object would certainly be a windfall for miners.)

But, as I said, as long as the long-term damage from caked on dust is predictable and limited to a known and acceptable level I don't see this form of attack as a show-stopper issue.  Floating or vastly increasing the block size would just make an attack of this nature cheaper and that much more likely to succeed.  At least in causing long term damage to the Bitcoin solution.

edit: add missing word.

sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
Elwar
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3486
Merit: 2214


Viva Ut Vivas


View Profile WWW
March 09, 2013, 04:52:23 PM
 #150

Yes, let us focus on Satoshi Dice and make them change their ways so that we can ignore this "flaw".

Meanwhile, to drive the price down so someone can buy a bunch of BTC, they can flood the blockchain with tiny transactions and make it "bothersome" for miners.


I am not a miner and have not been following them, but has there been some huge uproar from the miners saying that they are super bothered by all of the tiny transactions? There are ASIC machines coming out that can do 60 MH/s, are they going to be worthless because of so much "dust"?

I have not seen a huge exodus of miners fed up with the amount of traffic.

First seastead company actually selling sea homes: Ocean Builders https://ocean.builders  Of course we accept bitcoin.
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1032



View Profile
March 09, 2013, 05:04:11 PM
 #151

Yes, let us focus on Satoshi Dice and make them change their ways so that we can ignore this "flaw".
The flaw is miners neglecting their job to filter out spam. Do you have a solution to force miners to care about Bitcoin in the long-term?
I'm all for better solutions, but so far I've not heard any.

justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400
Merit: 1006



View Profile
March 09, 2013, 05:22:37 PM
 #152

Do you have a solution to force miners to care about Bitcoin in the long-term?
I'm all for better solutions, but so far I've not heard any.
You could make it economical to clean up the mess, which is a better long term solution because it doesn't rely a constant arms race to filter out bad behaviour.

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

At least one client developer is willing to automatically clean up those unprunable dust transactions if the right incentives are in place.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 3640
Merit: 1196


View Profile
March 09, 2013, 05:25:11 PM
 #153

Yes, let us focus on Satoshi Dice and make them change their ways so that we can ignore this "flaw".

Meanwhile, to drive the price down so someone can buy a bunch of BTC, they can flood the blockchain with tiny transactions and make it "bothersome" for miners.


I am not a miner and have not been following them, but has there been some huge uproar from the miners saying that they are super bothered by all of the tiny transactions? There are ASIC machines coming out that can do 60 MH/s, are they going to be worthless because of so much "dust"?

I have not seen a huge exodus of miners fed up with the amount of traffic.

Those actually mining are not 'peers' in the supposedly peer-2-peer system per-se.  Transfer nodes are, and yes, there have been an exodus of these due to bloat and overhead.  It is quite possible to render these almost completely outside of the reach of all non-commercial participants depending on how things evolve.  How much of a problem that is depends on where one stands in the Bitcoin ecosystem from a philosophical and/or monetary investment standpoint.


sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
niko
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 500


There is more to Bitcoin than bitcoins.


View Profile
March 09, 2013, 05:25:51 PM
 #154

Yes, let us focus on Satoshi Dice and make them change their ways so that we can ignore this "flaw".
The flaw is miners neglecting their job to filter out spam. Do you have a solution to force miners to care about Bitcoin in the long-term?
I'm all for better solutions, but so far I've not heard any.
I don't see SD dust transactions as "spam" - a better example of spam would be your insertion of jesus messages into blockchain: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=38007.0

They're there, in their room.
Your mining rig is on fire, yet you're very calm.
Elwar
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3486
Merit: 2214


Viva Ut Vivas


View Profile WWW
March 09, 2013, 05:44:45 PM
 #155

So I should be able to start CPU mining again and make some money?

First seastead company actually selling sea homes: Ocean Builders https://ocean.builders  Of course we accept bitcoin.
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736
Merit: 1002

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
March 09, 2013, 05:47:42 PM
 #156

Yes, let us focus on Satoshi Dice and make them change their ways so that we can ignore this "flaw".
The flaw is miners neglecting their job to filter out spam. Do you have a solution to force miners to care about Bitcoin in the long-term?
I'm all for better solutions, but so far I've not heard any.
Let me see if I understand how this will play out. Eventually only very large mining operations will be profitable. They will police each other by agreeing to accept each other's spam-free (or at least within a tolerable threshold) blocks out of necessity by branding (i.e. VISA/MC) their blocks. There will be the temptation to take the transaction fees anyway, but it will be balanced against the speed their blocks will be verified. Merchants that subscribe to mining operations to clear their transactions will prefer the fastest block verifications.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
Prattler
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 192
Merit: 100


View Profile
March 09, 2013, 05:58:14 PM
 #157

Satoshi dice, thank you for exposing dust output spam vulnerability in bitcoin (bloating unspent tx output data, which is RAM and is much more expensive than HDD!). You have already proved your point, would be nice if you stopped spamming until devs and mining pool operators can act on it.

misterbigg, thank you for raising awareness of the problem and discussing it in a polite manner. Some evangelists keep saying bitcoin is perfect. Well it's not! Bitcoin is still an experiment! It has some design problems that need to be solved. Dust output spam vulnerability is one of them.

Developers and pool operators, please address the dust output spam vulnerability. I personally think that transaction outputs should not be smaller than the fee/kB paid. Additionaly, it would prevent mistakes like https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=149926 – a very nice side effect!
ShadowOfHarbringer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 1003


Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952


View Profile
March 09, 2013, 06:28:35 PM
 #158

Satoshi dice, thank you for exposing dust output spam vulnerability in bitcoin (bloating unspent tx output data, which is RAM and is much more expensive than HDD!).

Exactly my point. We should THANK them for exposing it - i would rather have SDICE exploit this flaw now rather than somebody else with really bad intentions some time in the future.

You have already proved your point, would be nice if you stopped spamming until devs and mining pool operators can act on it.

No, it wouldn't be nice. If not SatoshiDICE, then somebody will use this flaw in the protocol.
SDICE is putting a pressure on the parties interested (miners, devs) to fix this. So I say don't bother SDICE and let it continue until the protocol bug is resolved.

misterbigg, thank you for raising awareness of the problem

For the thousandth time: There is NO "problem". Just a bug in the software.

----
Also, OP of this topic is simply spreading FUD.

Prattler
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 192
Merit: 100


View Profile
March 09, 2013, 06:44:15 PM
 #159

For the thousandth time: There is NO "problem". Just a bug in the software.

Bitcoin is not just software, it's also the users who use that software (or ruleset/fork). P2SH change was simple from the software standpoint, but quite difficult because of the social aspect of pools having to agree to upgrade. The fix for this might be as slow as P2SH change. Bugs in societies are much more difficult to fix than in software Smiley
blockbet.net
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


Admin at blockbet.net


View Profile WWW
March 09, 2013, 06:53:37 PM
 #160

If not SatoshiDICE, then somebody will use this flaw in the protocol.

It's not likely that this "somebody" would ever reach the kinds of volumes that SD have, so it wouldn't be much of a problem if this "somebody" would do so if their operations were minimal.

Second, by raising awareness of the issue, SD, the "others", and the gamblers can decide and do what's best for Bitcoin, since they would only be hurting themselves by harming the network with their spamming.

Bitcoin Sports Betting online at www.blockbet.net, featuring NBA, NHL, UFC, football (soccer) and international competitions. Fast payouts directly to your wallet, great win odds, no need to register or deposit. Bet in just a few clicks now!
misterbigg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064
Merit: 1001



View Profile
March 09, 2013, 07:02:22 PM
 #161

It's not likely that this "somebody" would ever reach the kinds of volumes that SD has, so it wouldn't be much of a problem if this "somebody" would do so if their operations were minimal.

Yeah the combination of SatoshiDICE's reluctance to change their losing bet confirmation along with Blockchain.info giving them tons of free traffic through direct links from wallet page is a one-two punch to the face of not only everyone running a full node, but any users who have to pay fees (because the fees are higher).

This is hitting legitimate businesses like bitpay or even mtgox directly in the wallet through higher fees.

I'm not saying that gambling is not a valid use of the block chain, nor am I saying that we should block SatoshiDICE specifically from the network. But we desperately need to make it impossible or impractical to send amounts that are below the cost of transmission and storage.
Amitabh S
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1001
Merit: 1000


View Profile
March 09, 2013, 07:23:36 PM
 #162

How about SD send the 1 satoshi (or 1000 satoshis) to a common "donation" address instead of back to the sender?

Senders can verify that the donation indeed contains funds from at least one of their original outputs. Also, SD can bunch a lot of such payments into one tx.

Its still a "band aid" until the "problem" (as many say) is fixed.

Coinsecure referral ID: https://coinsecure.in/signup/refamit (use this link to signup)
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1032



View Profile
March 09, 2013, 07:26:54 PM
 #163

i would rather have SDICE exploit this flaw now rather than somebody else with really bad intentions some time in the future.
SD has clearly established, through their refusal to stop attacking Bitcoin, that their intentions are bad - or at the very least indistinguishable from what someone with bad intentions would do.

misterbigg, thank you for raising awareness of the problem
For the thousandth time: There is NO "problem". Just a bug in the software.
No, there is no software bug. The bug is in the human component of the protocol.
Satoshi was intelligent enough to recognize that no anti-spam software can ever be perfect or address future spamming techniques, so he designed the Bitcoin protocol to make use of humans to manage the job.
The mistake was that he assumed that miners would always care about the long-term welfare of Bitcoin, and neglected to give them any real incentive to do so. As a result, the bigger miners - who apparently only care about their short-term profits - neglect and/or refuse to do their part in filtering out this garbage.
The only bug here is in these humans - not the software.

misterbigg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064
Merit: 1001



View Profile
March 09, 2013, 07:40:08 PM
 #164

How about SD send the 1 satoshi (or 1000 satoshis) to a common "donation" address instead of back to the sender?

The reason SatoshiDICE sends these betting loss confirmation is because Blockchain.info plays a sound when your wallet receives a payment. The cycle goes like this:

1) user logs into their Blockchain.info wallet
2) user clicks a SatoshiDICE betting link
3) SD sends them a loss confirmation
4) Blockchain.info AJAX web page plays a sound
5) go to step #2

If the 1 satoshi goes to a donation address then the player doesn't hear the sound and there's no Pavlovian conditioned response taking place.

Quote
Also, SD can bunch a lot of such payments into one tx.

Not really because all the dust comes from different places so will require many txin, typically 1 for each loss notification, wherein the fees for each additional txin will be many times higher than the amount sent.
Mageant
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1145
Merit: 1001



View Profile WWW
March 09, 2013, 07:42:36 PM
 #165

If this really is a problem for Bitcoin, then couldn't somebody with bad intentions use it to try to destroy the network?

After all, it wouldn't cost very much, only the minimal transaction fee.

If that is the case then it isn't solved by just persuading SatoshiDice to stop doing this.

cjgames.com
misterbigg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064
Merit: 1001



View Profile
March 09, 2013, 07:49:49 PM
 #166

If this really is a problem for Bitcoin, then couldn't somebody with bad intentions use it to try to destroy the network? After all, it wouldn't cost very much, only the minimal transaction fee. If that is the case then it isn't solved by just persuading SatoshiDice to stop doing this.

As has been stated over, and over, and over, and over....persuading SatoshiDICE is only one prong of a multi-pronged solution. Of course the other part is to implement technical measures to make the creation of economically unviable transactions expensive.

Why won't it read?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
March 09, 2013, 07:59:23 PM
 #167


Not really because all the dust comes from different places so will require many txin, typically 1 for each loss notification, wherein the fees for each additional txin will be many times higher than the amount sent.


its much more than that.  SD wants and needs to give immediate loss feedback with 0 confirmations.  they do that to encourage repeated and impulsive betting.  they get away with this b/c if someone is trying to do a double spend, the bet tx won't confirm and thus neither will SD's loss notification.
Jutarul
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 994
Merit: 1000



View Profile
March 09, 2013, 08:05:01 PM
 #168

... Of course the other part is to implement technical measures to make the creation of economically unviable transactions expensive.
Let me officially endorse this statement.

However, let me also remind everyone that there are legitimate uses for creating dust outputs (e.g. colored coins, contracts). Thus some transactions may "appear" economically unviable, however they there may still be a strong inherent incentive to spent it.

Ultimately what should be the deciding factor is the intent of spending any output at a later stage. One way to give the intent a monetary value is the use of deposits. But there may be other, more refined measures to capture intent in terms of transaction fees. I'd like to see more proposals.

The ASICMINER Project https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=99497.0
"The way you solve things is by making it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing.", Milton Friedman
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1000


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
March 09, 2013, 08:49:36 PM
 #169

... Of course the other part is to implement technical measures to make the creation of economically unviable transactions expensive.
Let me officially endorse this statement.

However, let me also remind everyone that there are legitimate uses for creating dust outputs (e.g. colored coins, contracts). Thus some transactions may "appear" economically unviable, however they there may still be a strong inherent incentive to spent it.

Ultimately what should be the deciding factor is the intent of spending any output at a later stage. One way to give the intent a monetary value is the use of deposits. But there may be other, more refined measures to capture intent in terms of transaction fees. I'd like to see more proposals.

I have been thinking about this and the distinction between spam and virus-like behavior is critical here. Just as your PC/laptop needs anti-spam for email, it also needs anit-virus software for the thousands of more "intelligent" threats.

While the existing Bitcoin mining filters are excellent at transactional anti-spam, they have not been designed for, and tested with, virus-like transactions. SD is showing that this threat is out there. It is doing a huge favor to Bitcoin because anti-virus protection needs to be built-in as well. This would "capture intent" and permit the legitimate uses Jutarul mentions.

From what I hear, SD has already implemented a 0.5% min loss payout, Thank-you Erik! Great news, it helps a lot on the blockchain bloat front.
The larger threat is from external virus-like applications - and this is still out there...

misterbigg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064
Merit: 1001



View Profile
March 09, 2013, 09:51:39 PM
 #170

Ultimately what should be the deciding factor is the intent of spending any output at a later stage.

Wow...good luck writing that function! I don't think it's possible to encode this in computer code.
Jutarul
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 994
Merit: 1000



View Profile
March 09, 2013, 10:03:12 PM
 #171

Ultimately what should be the deciding factor is the intent of spending any output at a later stage.

Wow...good luck writing that function! I don't think it's possible to encode this in computer code.
Yes - there is no way to measure intent. But we could resort to game theory to investigate the necessary rules for an environment in which people are encouraged to remove unspent outputs timely.

The ASICMINER Project https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=99497.0
"The way you solve things is by making it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing.", Milton Friedman
ShadowOfHarbringer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 1003


Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952


View Profile
March 10, 2013, 12:17:32 AM
 #172

SD has clearly established, through their refusal to stop attacking Bitcoin, that their intentions are bad - or at the very least indistinguishable from what someone with bad intentions would do.

No, there is no software bug. The bug is in the human component of the protocol.

This is such a terrible bullshit. Can you all please stop creating this bullshit and spreading FUD ?

You simply don't get the point: If the HUMAN behavior is a problem which the network cannot solve itself using its own algorithms, then the network is useless and doomed to failure.
There can be no such thing as human component-based bug in the protocol, because the protocol is designed to cope exactly with that.

Bitcoin is still on very early stages. If BTC at this stage cannot cope with such a minor disturbance as SatoshiDICE currently is, then it cannot cope with reality at all and should be either fixed or redesigned from scratch.

The point in short:
The whole Bitcoin network exists exactly for the reason of coping with human imperfections (like forgery, double spending, thievery and other cons), so if it cannot do that, that means it is *completely useless*.

Did i make myself clear this time ?

solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1000


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
March 10, 2013, 12:31:47 AM
 #173

SD has clearly established, through their refusal to stop attacking Bitcoin, that their intentions are bad - or at the very least indistinguishable from what someone with bad intentions would do.

No, there is no software bug. The bug is in the human component of the protocol.

This is such a terrible bullshit. Can you all please stop creating this bullshit and spreading FUD ?

You simply don't get the point: If the HUMAN behavior is a problem which the network cannot solve itself using its own algorithms, then the network is useless and doomed to failure.
There can be no such thing as human component-based bug in the protocol, because the protocol is designed to cope exactly with that.

Bitcoin is still on very early stages. If BTC at this stage cannot cope with such a minor disturbance as SatoshiDICE currently is, then it cannot cope with reality at all and should be either fixed or redesigned from scratch.

The point in short:
The whole Bitcoin network exists exactly for the reason of coping with human imperfections (like forgery, double spending, thievery and other cons), so if it cannot do that, that means it is *completely useless*.

Did i make myself clear this time ?

+1

Jutarul
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 994
Merit: 1000



View Profile
March 10, 2013, 01:11:21 AM
 #174

The whole Bitcoin network exists exactly for the reason of coping with human imperfections (like forgery, double spending, thievery and other cons), so if it cannot do that, that means it is *completely useless*.

Did i make myself clear this time ?
Nobody is arguing against that. The point raised by the OP is that the current structuring of transaction fees only takes into account the current network cost of a transaction and doesn't capture the (indeterminate) future cost of keeping that unspent output available.

If you want to understand it in software terms: intentionally unspendable outputs have the same devastating effect as a memory leak. Thus one has to try to either tame them or define a scheme by which the blockchain can be cleared from them once in a while.

The ASICMINER Project https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=99497.0
"The way you solve things is by making it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing.", Milton Friedman
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400
Merit: 1006



View Profile
March 10, 2013, 01:25:44 AM
 #175

Thus one has to try to either tame them or define a scheme by which the blockchain can be cleared from them once in a while.
Miners have complete control over which transactions they include in a block. They don't need to use the default rules, nor do they need to change the protocol. A couple lines of code could create the necessary incentive to clean up all of these "unspendable" dust outputs.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=150726.0
misterbigg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064
Merit: 1001



View Profile
March 10, 2013, 01:34:13 AM
 #176

Miners have complete control over which transactions they include in a block. They don't need to use the default rules, nor do they need to change the protocol. A couple lines of code could create the necessary incentive to clean up all of these "unspendable" dust outputs.

Miners have complete control but they also act in their own economic self-interest (just like S.DICE). Cleaning up dust would cost caring miners money:

Not just care, but care enough to forgo some income for it when they take a txn consuming more utxo paying lower fees per byte over one consuming less utxo paying more.

There is no incentive to clean up dust.
zebedee
Donator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 668
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 10, 2013, 01:40:32 AM
 #177


There is no incentive to clean up dust.

Then let's not worry about it!  Great.
misterbigg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064
Merit: 1001



View Profile
March 10, 2013, 01:43:29 AM
 #178

There is no incentive to clean up dust.
Then let's not worry about it!  Great.

You didn't read. I quoted gmaxwell's explanation for why miners are not really incentivized to clean up dust (hint: it would cost them money).

We do have to worry about it, because the dust makes transactions cost more than their value. I'm not sure I understand your point, do you not get that unspendable outputs are bad?
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400
Merit: 1006



View Profile
March 10, 2013, 01:47:51 AM
 #179

I quoted gmaxwell's explanation for why miners are not really incentivized to clean up dust
And you refrained from quoting the explanation of why they are incentivized.
misterbigg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064
Merit: 1001



View Profile
March 10, 2013, 02:49:42 AM
 #180

I quoted gmaxwell's explanation for why miners are not really incentivized to clean up dust
And you refrained from quoting the explanation of why they are incentivized.

Okay, I have to admit that I do not fully understand the exact mechanics of your proposal. Are you saying that there is a way to financially reward miners to collect the dust? Because that wasn't apparent from your post, and I think it is what gmaxwell was saying. I would love to be proven wrong of course, because this would solve the spam problem in a way that fixes it for anyone who exhibits the bad behavior and not just targeting one company specifically.
DoomDumas
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1001
Merit: 1000


Bitcoin forever !


View Profile WWW
March 10, 2013, 02:56:09 AM
 #181

Sorry but thread title is misleading.
Right. There is an attack, but it's originating from the OP.

+1

MisterBigg being more and more Ignored.. not surprising
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400
Merit: 1006



View Profile
March 10, 2013, 03:03:37 AM
 #182

The only information that miners absolutely must keep on hand is the set of unspent outputs (UTXO set) because it's possible to allow them to discard all the rest of the historical transaction data using optimizations that have been discussed but not yet implemented. The UTXO set is what some people refer to as unprunable data.

Right now that set is a few hundred megabytes, but if we imagine a billion Bitcoin users all playing Satoshi Dice it would get very large unless there is an incentive for users to limit the number of outputs in their wallet. Especially when the transaction rate is very high miners are probably going to want to keep the UTXO in RAM to speed up verification, which means as the set gets larger their capital equipment costs go up.

So if they effectively subsidize transactions which reduce the UTXO set by requiring a lower fee in the number of outputs is less than the number of inputs they lose a bit in fee revenue but gain in terms of lower hardware requirements.

Once miners start doing this, client developers will have an incentive to include dust collection into their coin selection algorithms and the dust will be cleaned up automatically.
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1000


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
March 10, 2013, 03:10:55 AM
Last edit: March 10, 2013, 04:55:13 AM by solex
 #183

Sorry but thread title is misleading.
Right. There is an attack, but it's originating from the OP.

+1

MisterBigg being more and more Ignored.. not surprising

DoomDumas, you might not agree with misterbigg's unconventional cage-rattling approach but he does deserve to be heard. I disagree with him in a major way regarding the 1Mb limit, but I do agree with his concerns about Bitcoin being abused as a messaging system and shotgunned with micro-transactions.

You had a good laugh about Mt Gox choking up earlier this week, as you use other exchanges, but what if Bitcoin itself chokes up? Are you going to laugh about that and load up on pre-mined Freicoin instead?

I am still concerned because people are talking about using bots for SatoshiDice. This would seem a green light for high-volume traffic growth and Bitcoin seizures which would make Mt Gox's choke-up a pause for breath in comparison.

misterbigg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064
Merit: 1001



View Profile
March 10, 2013, 04:54:14 AM
 #184

The only information that miners absolutely must keep on hand is the set of unspent outputs (UTXO set) because it's possible to allow them to discard all the rest of the historical transaction data using optimizations that have been discussed but not yet implemented...

Okay, thanks for clarifying. I understand it now. This deserves a good response but not in the general discussion forum where the lunatics mingle with the sane. I'm going to move this to the thread you started in Development and Technical Discussion.

...you might not agree with misterbigg's unconventional cage-rattling approach but he does deserve to be heard....I do agree with his concerns about Bitcoin being abused as a messaging system and shotgunned with micro-transactions.

I'm the first to admit that I've projected a certain amount of sensationalism. But only because this is a social issue. Despite Bitcoin's decentralized nature, there is still a community that needs to act together for the common good. For example, what if we need a hard fork some time in the future?

I disagree with him in a major way regarding the 1Mb limit

There's a lot more room for debate regarding the block size, and it's not really a pressing issue right now which is why I have not brought it to the same level of attention that I did with this SD spam. I posted this thread because there was a lot of consternation in bitcoin-dev about the deluge of S.DICE loss confirmations.

I do concede that the block size issue is not so clear cut. There are good arguments to be made on both sides. But there are no sound arguments for keeping the SD dust.

I am still concerned because people are talking about using bots for SatoshiDice.

That is a concern but if people want to pay the transaction fees to send economically spendable amounts, there's nothing that we can really do about it, since it can't be distinguished from "legitimate use." In the long run the bots will just drive fees up prematurely but that might be something we just have to accept.
evoorhees
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008
Merit: 1009


Democracy is the original 51% attack


View Profile
March 10, 2013, 05:36:27 AM
 #185

but I do agree with his concerns about Bitcoin being abused as a messaging system and shotgunned with micro-transactions.

Let's remember that the small txs from SatoshiDice are only about 1/8th of all txs on the Bitcoin network (1/4th of SD-related txs, which are in turn 1/2 of the network, roughly). If SD stopped the loss-bet confirmation txs, you only reduce blockchain usage by 1/8th... and this amount will be re-added to the network within a month or two.

It is a very silly distraction to get in a fuss about the loss-bet txs from SatoshiDice.
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1000


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
March 10, 2013, 05:56:49 AM
Last edit: March 10, 2013, 06:31:53 AM by solex
 #186

but I do agree with his concerns about Bitcoin being abused as a messaging system and shotgunned with micro-transactions.

Let's remember that the small txs from SatoshiDice are only about 1/8th of all txs on the Bitcoin network (1/4th of SD-related txs, which are in turn 1/2 of the network, roughly). If SD stopped the loss-bet confirmation txs, you only reduce blockchain usage by 1/8th... and this amount will be re-added to the network within a month or two.

It is a very silly distraction to get in a fuss about the loss-bet txs from SatoshiDice.

OK, thanks for the further information, it is indeed reassuring! And in fact, it is now clear that SatoshiDice is not an imminent risk to Bitcoin because you are monitoring the situation and it is always under your control. The real risk lies in the sudden emergence of one or more of a special type of high volume application owned by people who will not make themselves known to the forum. We can call them Dead Puppy Apps, if i can borrow gmaxwell's terminology here.

misterbigg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064
Merit: 1001



View Profile
March 10, 2013, 06:23:10 AM
 #187

It is a very silly distraction to get in a fuss about the loss-bet txs from SatoshiDice.

Some facts. "DP-involved" means any transaction which has a SatoshiDICE address in either the inputs or the outputs.

...A transaction is considered DP involved if it pays to an identified DP address or if any of its inputs paid to an identified DP address.

Height  Size    Amount of DP-involved.
224737 163012 82.0755%
224736 498888 94.9111% (!)
224734 249140 93.4021%
224732 498991 85.5789%
224728 249091 80.2395%

...the supply of these transactions seems to be basically unbounded it seems likely that adjustments to block target sizes are unlikely to produce faster confirmations at this time.

There is so much SD transaction spam that it is enough to fill blocks of any size. Can anyone honestly say with a straight face that this is healthy, productive growth?
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1000


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
March 10, 2013, 06:38:43 AM
 #188

To be fair, it is paid for by fees which are bigger than all other sources combined, and will get bigger because of the 0.5% change. Which means it is not spam, but a type of high-volume flow which, arguably, Bitcoin is not ready for.

misterbigg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064
Merit: 1001



View Profile
March 10, 2013, 06:43:41 AM
 #189

To be fair, it is paid for by fees which are bigger than all other sources combined, and will get bigger because of the 0.5% change. Which means it is not spam, but a type of high-volume flow which, arguably, Bitcoin is not ready for.

Fees in SD's increased traffic only pays for some of the added costs. Specifically, the SD traffic that produces economically unspendable outputs is not sufficiently compensated by the transaction fee.

As I have said many times there are two components to the SD spam:

1) high transaction volume
2) economically unspendable outputs

While #1 is not particularly desirable since it doesn't come with a corresponding increase in Bitcoin adoption, it is tolerable since eventually we will have to support that volume regardless. What is lamentable is that it drives transaction fees up prematurely but this is only a temporary effect.

#2 is a disaster! This is what could "KILL" Bitcoin, because it disproportionately increases the initial and ongoing costs of mining! And it's not a storage issue. It's a CPU issue, because the bottleneck is in signature verification. Although it certainly increases storage costs (by a small amount).

ECONOMICALLY UNSPENDABLE OUTPUTS are the terminal problem. Not the transaction volume.

bitcoinbeliever
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 54
Merit: 0


View Profile
March 10, 2013, 06:52:33 AM
 #190

What a load of nonsense [..]  reminds me of shitload of propaganda that is poured on every single person all around the world for the last several thousand years.

Absolutely first-class, A+ rant!  I quite agree and this thread is suspicious in the extreme.
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1000


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
March 10, 2013, 06:55:07 AM
 #191

....

#2 is a disaster! This is what could "KILL" Bitcoin, because it disproportionately increases the initial and ongoing costs of mining! And it's not a storage issue. It's a CPU issue, because the bottleneck is in signature verification. Although it certainly increases storage costs (by a small amount).

ECONOMICALLY UNSPENDABLE OUTPUTS are the terminal problem. Not the transaction volume.


#2 was seemingly resolved/minimized...
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=150493.msg1604045#msg1604045

I know that 5000 satoshi for the 0.01 bet size is marginal, but anything much larger becomes spendable, surely.

misterbigg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064
Merit: 1001



View Profile
March 10, 2013, 06:56:40 AM
 #192

#2 was seemingly resolved/minimized...
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=150493.msg1604045#msg1604045

I know that 5000 satoshi for the 0.01 Bet size is marginal, but anything much larger becomes spendable, surely.

5000 satoshi is below the minimum tx fee for relay of non-aged coins so how could this be resolved? I think SD added this to work around psy's hack.
bitnoob
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 10
Merit: 0


View Profile
March 10, 2013, 07:05:00 AM
 #193

Would it be better for Bitcoin if SatoshiDice were to switch to LiteCoin instead?
misterbigg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064
Merit: 1001



View Profile
March 10, 2013, 07:06:48 AM
 #194

Would it be better for Bitcoin if SatoshiDice were to switch to LiteCoin instead?

Now this is probably the best question that has ever been asked!
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1000


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
March 10, 2013, 07:07:30 AM
 #195

#2 was seemingly resolved/minimized...
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=150493.msg1604045#msg1604045

I know that 5000 satoshi for the 0.01 Bet size is marginal, but anything much larger becomes spendable, surely.

5000 satoshi is below the minimum tx fee for relay of non-aged coins so how could this be resolved? I think SD added this to work around psy's hack.


Ok. I just checked on github and based on the latest revision dust is considered < 100,000 satoshi
However, the fx rate is 3 times higher since that was decided, so 33,000 is a reasonable comparison now. So any SatoshiDice bet above 0.07 will not leave a dust amount for a loss.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2100

ShadowOfHarbringer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 1003


Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952


View Profile
March 10, 2013, 10:03:55 AM
 #196

The whole Bitcoin network exists exactly for the reason of coping with human imperfections (like forgery, double spending, thievery and other cons), so if it cannot do that, that means it is *completely useless*.

Did i make myself clear this time ?
Nobody is arguing against that. The point raised by the OP is that the current structuring of transaction fees only takes into account the current network cost of a transaction and doesn't capture the (indeterminate) future cost of keeping that unspent output available.

If you want to understand it in software terms: intentionally unspendable outputs have the same devastating effect as a memory leak.

Oh, I understand this perfectly. But you are not really on topic.

What is this discussion about is:
- Misterbigg wants us, community to *socially pressure SatoshiDICE into stopping generating spam*
- I (and many others) say that this is *bullshit and a pointless waste of time, because network should be designed to cope with that*. And if it isn't yet, it should be. Why ? Because somebody with really bad intentions will start attacking it using this vulnerability sooner or later.

ShadowOfHarbringer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 1003


Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952


View Profile
March 10, 2013, 10:06:59 AM
 #197

Would it be better for Bitcoin if SatoshiDice were to switch to LiteCoin instead?

Now this is probably the best question that has ever been asked!


Again: you cannot and will not tell SatoshiDice (or anybody else for that matter) what to do with their Bitcoins.

If they can send spam, then it is a problem of the network. The network should not allow them to do that or it should make it unfeasible/uneconomic. If it doesn't do that, it needs to be fixed.

----
Please, stop spreading your stupid FUD.

finway
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714
Merit: 500


View Profile
March 10, 2013, 10:34:52 AM
 #198

If bitcoin can't deal with SatoshiDice, how can it deal with fiat money?

Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1032



View Profile
March 10, 2013, 11:51:08 AM
 #199

To be fair, it is paid for by fees which are bigger than all other sources combined, and will get bigger because of the 0.5% change. Which means it is not spam, but a type of high-volume flow which, arguably, Bitcoin is not ready for.
The current fees are there to deter flooding, not to justify it. Even with fees, transactions are still being mostly subsidized by miners.

To use gmaxwell's analogy...
The city has decided that to prevent pissing in an alley, they will impose a $1 fee anytime someone goes into it. The goal is to stop pissing in the alley, and $1 was chosen as a price that wouldn't be too harmful to legitimate alley use. The cost of cleaning up piss in the alley is still at least $7.
Now a bar (DiceBar) opens up next door to the alley. Instead of operating a bathroom, they've decided it's cheaper for them to just add the $1 fee to all their customers' bills as a surcharge, and have customers go piss in the alley instead.
While a few customers leave in disgust at this policy, most of them are drunk (gambling addiction) and go piss in the alley, never giving it a second thought. There are a few who stand up for DiceBar - they say that since the bar is "paying" the fee, they have the right to use the alley as a bathroom.

Any rational person can see how ridiculous this is.

Lethn
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1540
Merit: 1000



View Profile WWW
March 10, 2013, 11:52:48 AM
 #200

Quote
If they can send spam, then it is a problem of the network. The network should not allow them to do that or it should make it unfeasible/uneconomic. If it doesn't do that, it needs to be fixed.

This actually reminds me a lot of the logic behind a large games company never fixing something, when they discover a blatantly abused glitch or bug, their response the majority of the time is to run around banning people and locking threads pointing it out. Instead of just fix it which in the long run would be far easier and make them more money because then people could keep playing the game.

Where the fuck do people get off this logic that making a problem illegal or banning it fixes everything? It seems to be a commonly accepted and wrong piece of reasoning everywhere.
ShadowOfHarbringer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 1003


Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952


View Profile
March 10, 2013, 12:06:20 PM
 #201

The city has decided that to prevent pissing in an alley, they will impose a $1 fee anytime someone goes into it. The goal is to stop pissing in the alley, and $1 was chosen as a price that wouldn't be too harmful to legitimate alley use. The cost of cleaning up piss in the alley is still at least $7.
Now a bar (DiceBar) opens up next door to the alley. Instead of operating a bathroom, they've decided it's cheaper for them to just add the $1 fee to all their customers' bills as a surcharge, and have customers go piss in the alley instead.
While a few customers leave in disgust at this policy, most of them are drunk (gambling addiction) and go piss in the alley, never giving it a second thought. There are a few who stand up for DiceBar - they say that since the bar is "paying" the fee, they have the right to use the alley as a bathroom.

This is wrong way of thinking. Your example is not adjusted to Bitcoin's reality and therefore irrelevant.

Bitcoin network does not exist in the real world, where some social rules (like a fine for pissing in the alley) must be created to stop socially-unacceptable behavior. We are past that.
The Bitcoin network was designed to cope exactly with people breaking social rules.

Paraphrasing your example:
In the Bitcoin world the valley is completely robotic & automatic so therefore no stupid laws are required to make it work. To fix the problem algorithms of the valley should be changed to automatically drive away people trying to piss in it !


Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1032



View Profile
March 10, 2013, 12:11:28 PM
 #202

The city has decided that to prevent pissing in an alley, they will impose a $1 fee anytime someone goes into it. The goal is to stop pissing in the alley, and $1 was chosen as a price that wouldn't be too harmful to legitimate alley use. The cost of cleaning up piss in the alley is still at least $7.
Now a bar (DiceBar) opens up next door to the alley. Instead of operating a bathroom, they've decided it's cheaper for them to just add the $1 fee to all their customers' bills as a surcharge, and have customers go piss in the alley instead.
While a few customers leave in disgust at this policy, most of them are drunk (gambling addiction) and go piss in the alley, never giving it a second thought. There are a few who stand up for DiceBar - they say that since the bar is "paying" the fee, they have the right to use the alley as a bathroom.

This is wrong way of thinking. Your example is not adjusted to Bitcoin's reality and therefore irrelevant.

Bitcoin network does not exist in the real world, where some social rules (like a fine for pissing in the alley) must be created to stop socially-unacceptable behavior. We are past that.
The Bitcoin network was designed to cope exactly with people breaking social rules.

Paraphrasing your example:
In the Bitcoin world the valley is completely robotic & automatic so therefore no stupid laws are required to make it work. To fix the problem algorithms of the valley should be changed to automatically drive away people trying to piss in it !
Your delusions are not an alternative "Bitcoin's reality", no matter how "idealistic" you try to make them. There is only one reality, and Bitcoin is just another currency within it.
Bitcoin was designed to cope with people breaking (some) rules by having other people filter it out.
While completely robotic anti-spam would be nice, it's not something this era has managed to achieve.

ShadowOfHarbringer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 1003


Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952


View Profile
March 10, 2013, 12:29:53 PM
 #203

The city has decided that to prevent pissing in an alley, they will impose a $1 fee anytime someone goes into it. The goal is to stop pissing in the alley, and $1 was chosen as a price that wouldn't be too harmful to legitimate alley use. The cost of cleaning up piss in the alley is still at least $7.
Now a bar (DiceBar) opens up next door to the alley. Instead of operating a bathroom, they've decided it's cheaper for them to just add the $1 fee to all their customers' bills as a surcharge, and have customers go piss in the alley instead.
While a few customers leave in disgust at this policy, most of them are drunk (gambling addiction) and go piss in the alley, never giving it a second thought. There are a few who stand up for DiceBar - they say that since the bar is "paying" the fee, they have the right to use the alley as a bathroom.

This is wrong way of thinking. Your example is not adjusted to Bitcoin's reality and therefore irrelevant.

Bitcoin network does not exist in the real world, where some social rules (like a fine for pissing in the alley) must be created to stop socially-unacceptable behavior. We are past that.
The Bitcoin network was designed to cope exactly with people breaking social rules.

Paraphrasing your example:
In the Bitcoin world the valley is completely robotic & automatic so therefore no stupid laws are required to make it work. To fix the problem algorithms of the valley should be changed to automatically drive away people trying to piss in it !

Your delusions are not an alternative "Bitcoin's reality",

If you think that you can pressure ANYBODY into doing ANYTHING in a world consisting of darknets, peer-to-peer, mathematics, hardcore cryptography, crypto-geeks, ancarchists, libertarians, hardcore goldbugs & deflationists, then it is clearly you who is delusional.

You cannot tell anybody here (including SatoshiDICE) to do ANYTHING. Deal with it.

no matter how "idealistic" you try to make them. There is only one reality, and Bitcoin is just another currency within it.

Wrong on all counts. There are two realities. The "realworld-reality", and "Internet-reality".
I wonder how didn't you notice that before. We are creating a new, better world here. A world where free market without government intervention is created and ensured automatically using mathematic algorithms which are better than stupid social rules, because they cannot be broken easily.

People are always the weakest link in chain and that is the reason Bitcoin exists: to route around human imperfections.

While completely robotic anti-spam would be nice, it's not something this era has managed to achieve.

Completely robotic anti-spam is the only way out of this situation.

SatoshiDICE is completely nothing compared to an evil, powerful & determined attacker having hundereds millions of dollars avaiable. So if SatoshiDICE is a problem which cannot be solved using algorithms, that means Bitcoin was a failure from the start.

Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1032



View Profile
March 10, 2013, 12:33:50 PM
 #204

Wrong on all counts. There are two realities. The "realworld-reality", and "Internet-reality".
I wonder how didn't you notice that before. We are creating a new, better world here. A world where free market without government intervention is created and ensured automatically using mathematic algorithms which are better than stupid social rules, because they cannot be broken easily.

People are always the weakest chain and that is the reason Bitcoin exists: to route around human imperfections.
No. This is your delusion. Even if other nuts share it, it isn't reality.

While completely robotic anti-spam would be nice, it's not something this era has managed to achieve.
Completely robotic anti-spam is the only way out of this situation.
Then Bitcoin is doomed to fail.

SatoshiDICE is completely nothing compared to an evil, powerful & determined attacker having hundereds millions of dollars avaiable.
On the contrary, that is exactly what SatoshiDice is.

phelix
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1012



View Profile
March 10, 2013, 12:40:07 PM
 #205

The city has decided that to prevent pissing in an alley, they will impose a $1 fee anytime someone goes into it. The goal is to stop pissing in the alley, and $1 was chosen as a price that wouldn't be too harmful to legitimate alley use. The cost of cleaning up piss in the alley is still at least $7.
Now a bar (DiceBar) opens up next door to the alley. Instead of operating a bathroom, they've decided it's cheaper for them to just add the $1 fee to all their customers' bills as a surcharge, and have customers go piss in the alley instead.
While a few customers leave in disgust at this policy, most of them are drunk (gambling addiction) and go piss in the alley, never giving it a second thought. There are a few who stand up for DiceBar - they say that since the bar is "paying" the fee, they have the right to use the alley as a bathroom.

This is wrong way of thinking. Your example is not adjusted to Bitcoin's reality and therefore irrelevant.
[...]
+1

Bitcoin does not come with a manual or even a contract. Also there is no "city" == central authority. who gets to decide what is morally ok? There are no rules to Bitcoin so everything is allowed.
ShadowOfHarbringer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 1003


Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952


View Profile
March 10, 2013, 12:43:17 PM
 #206

Wrong on all counts. There are two realities. The "realworld-reality", and "Internet-reality".
I wonder how didn't you notice that before. We are creating a new, better world here. A world where free market without government intervention is created and ensured automatically using mathematic algorithms which are better than stupid social rules, because they cannot be broken easily.

People are always the weakest chain and that is the reason Bitcoin exists: to route around human imperfections.
No. This is your delusion. Even if other nuts share it, it isn't reality.

It isn't reality ? Then we can make it reality. Impossible is nothing.
30 years ago if you asked anybody and told them about smartphones or how today's internet works, they would probably burn you at the stake.

We, the "other nuts" go boldly in the future and fix the world with our crypto-mathematics. If you don't want to be part of it, them I am sorry for your loss.

While completely robotic anti-spam would be nice, it's not something this era has managed to achieve.
Completely robotic anti-spam is the only way out of this situation.
Then Bitcoin is doomed to fail.

Last time i checked, there were at least three different possible solutions to this problem presented on the forums, so excuse me if I won't take your word for that.

SatoshiDICE is completely nothing compared to an evil, powerful & determined attacker having hundereds millions of dollars avaiable.
On the contrary, that is exactly what SatoshiDice is.

Then perhaps you should stop wasting time whining around like a crybaby and try to find a mathematic solution instead.
Because your (and misterbigg's) posts are like "OH NOES, SDICE IS GONNA KILL US ALL SBDY STOP THEM OMG OMG OMG !!!!!1111one"


Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1032



View Profile
March 10, 2013, 12:45:23 PM
 #207

Wrong on all counts. There are two realities. The "realworld-reality", and "Internet-reality".
I wonder how didn't you notice that before. We are creating a new, better world here. A world where free market without government intervention is created and ensured automatically using mathematic algorithms which are better than stupid social rules, because they cannot be broken easily.

People are always the weakest chain and that is the reason Bitcoin exists: to route around human imperfections.
No. This is your delusion. Even if other nuts share it, it isn't reality.

It isn't reality ? Then we can make it reality. Impossible is nothing.
No thanks, as bad as the current governments are, what you propose is far worse.

phelix
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1012



View Profile
March 10, 2013, 12:45:41 PM
 #208

Quote
If they can send spam, then it is a problem of the network. The network should not allow them to do that or it should make it unfeasible/uneconomic. If it doesn't do that, it needs to be fixed.

This actually reminds me a lot of the logic behind a large games company never fixing something, when they discover a blatantly abused glitch or bug, their response the majority of the time is to run around banning people and locking threads pointing it out. Instead of just fix it which in the long run would be far easier and make them more money because then people could keep playing the game.

Where the fuck do people get off this logic that making a problem illegal or banning it fixes everything? It seems to be a commonly accepted and wrong piece of reasoning everywhere.
it is because people are shortsighted
ShadowOfHarbringer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 1003


Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952


View Profile
March 10, 2013, 12:47:07 PM
 #209

Wrong on all counts. There are two realities. The "realworld-reality", and "Internet-reality".
I wonder how didn't you notice that before. We are creating a new, better world here. A world where free market without government intervention is created and ensured automatically using mathematic algorithms which are better than stupid social rules, because they cannot be broken easily.

People are always the weakest chain and that is the reason Bitcoin exists: to route around human imperfections.
No. This is your delusion. Even if other nuts share it, it isn't reality.

It isn't reality ? Then we can make it reality. Impossible is nothing.
No thanks, as bad as the current governments are, what you propose is far worse.

To be clear...  what is that am I proposing, exactly ?

phelix
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1012



View Profile
March 10, 2013, 12:49:50 PM
 #210

SatoshiDICE is completely nothing compared to an evil, powerful & determined attacker having hundereds millions of dollars avaiable.
On the contrary, that is exactly what SatoshiDice is.
Satoshidice started from zero. It can be easily cloned with little effort.
Uglux
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 222
Merit: 100



View Profile
March 10, 2013, 12:51:45 PM
 #211

The Bitcoin network was designed to cope exactly with people breaking social rules.

We are creating a new, better world here. A world where free market without government intervention is created and ensured automatically using mathematic algorithms which are better than stupid social rules, because they cannot be broken easily.

Sorry, but you are creating this world only in your head.

I doubt, that your bitcoin world will ever find algorithms that stop socially-unacceptable behaviour like...slavery. That "stupid social rules" are everything, that stands between you and and the wild jungle of self interest.
Bitcoin is just another tool, the responsibility of its usage is still with its users.
ShadowOfHarbringer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 1003


Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952


View Profile
March 10, 2013, 12:55:59 PM
 #212

The Bitcoin network was designed to cope exactly with people breaking social rules.

We are creating a new, better world here. A world where free market without government intervention is created and ensured automatically using mathematic algorithms which are better than stupid social rules, because they cannot be broken easily.

Sorry, but you are creating this world only in your head.

I doubt, that your bitcoin world will ever find algorithms that stop socially-unacceptable behaviour like...slavery. That "stupid social rules" are everything, that stands between you and and the wild jungle of self interest.
Bitcoin is just another tool, the responsibility of its usage is still with its users.

Ok, I admit didn't make myself clear enough.

What i meant the algorithms of Bitcoin are here to stop people from breaking currency-related social rules like the following:
- Double spending
- Forgery
- Thievery (to a level, when combined with encryption / truecrypt)
- Money creation & devaluation by governments and banks - which is also thievery by inflation

Bitcoin solves these things automatically and internally without using stupid social rules, without the need of central authorities and/or lawyers.

Amitabh S
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1001
Merit: 1000


View Profile
March 10, 2013, 01:02:37 PM
 #213

Isn't it possible to currently send transactions with zero fee?
So why are those small amounts "ecomically unspendable"?

Coinsecure referral ID: https://coinsecure.in/signup/refamit (use this link to signup)
ShadowOfHarbringer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 1003


Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952


View Profile
March 10, 2013, 01:03:50 PM
 #214

Bumping for great justice.

@Luke-Jr:

Would you kindly answer my last question, Sir ? I still await your answer.

Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1032



View Profile
March 10, 2013, 01:04:09 PM
 #215

Wrong on all counts. There are two realities. The "realworld-reality", and "Internet-reality".
I wonder how didn't you notice that before. We are creating a new, better world here. A world where free market without government intervention is created and ensured automatically using mathematic algorithms which are better than stupid social rules, because they cannot be broken easily.

People are always the weakest chain and that is the reason Bitcoin exists: to route around human imperfections.
No. This is your delusion. Even if other nuts share it, it isn't reality.

It isn't reality ? Then we can make it reality. Impossible is nothing.
No thanks, as bad as the current governments are, what you propose is far worse.

To be clear...  what is that am I proposing, exactly ?
"A world where free market without government intervention is created and ensured"

ShadowOfHarbringer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 1003


Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952


View Profile
March 10, 2013, 01:08:33 PM
 #216

Wrong on all counts. There are two realities. The "realworld-reality", and "Internet-reality".
I wonder how didn't you notice that before. We are creating a new, better world here. A world where free market without government intervention is created and ensured automatically using mathematic algorithms which are better than stupid social rules, because they cannot be broken easily.

People are always the weakest chain and that is the reason Bitcoin exists: to route around human imperfections.
No. This is your delusion. Even if other nuts share it, it isn't reality.

It isn't reality ? Then we can make it reality. Impossible is nothing.
No thanks, as bad as the current governments are, what you propose is far worse.

To be clear...  what is that am I proposing, exactly ?
"A world where free market without government intervention is created and ensured"

Isn't this kind of what Bitcoin was created for ?
Isn't this kind of what Bitcoin market currently is ?
Isn't this kind of what libertarianism is all about ?

Doesn't that statement make you kind of an enemy of the whole Bitcoin concept (and libertarian spandpoint) by the way ?

You are still with us, or against us, because now I don't exactly see your position clearly ?

Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1032



View Profile
March 10, 2013, 01:15:24 PM
 #217

Wrong on all counts. There are two realities. The "realworld-reality", and "Internet-reality".
I wonder how didn't you notice that before. We are creating a new, better world here. A world where free market without government intervention is created and ensured automatically using mathematic algorithms which are better than stupid social rules, because they cannot be broken easily.

People are always the weakest chain and that is the reason Bitcoin exists: to route around human imperfections.
No. This is your delusion. Even if other nuts share it, it isn't reality.

It isn't reality ? Then we can make it reality. Impossible is nothing.
No thanks, as bad as the current governments are, what you propose is far worse.

To be clear...  what is that am I proposing, exactly ?
"A world where free market without government intervention is created and ensured"

Isn't this kind of what Bitcoin was created for ?
Isn't this kind of what Bitcoin market currently is ?
Isn't this kind of what libertarianism is all about ?

Doesn't that statement make you kind of an enemy of the whole Bitcoin concept (and libertarian spandpoint) by the way ?

You are still with us, or against us, because now I don't exactly see your position clearly ?
No, on the first two.
Libertarismism is not anti-government, just minimal government. And Bitcoin is not the same thing as libertarianism.
I will freely admit to being an enemy of libertarianism. The form of government that seems to work out best in practice is a monarchy.

ShadowOfHarbringer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 1003


Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952


View Profile
March 10, 2013, 01:17:30 PM
 #218