Bitcoin Forum
July 29, 2021, 07:03:49 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)
flower1024
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428
Merit: 1000


View Profile
March 10, 2013, 02:57:26 PM
 #241

After this discussion I don't trust you. I do not like where you would take this currency if you had the chance. I think you are an enemy.
If some day, by some "unfortunate accident" you become main developer, i will vote for creating a fork without you.
You could probably save yourself some stress by just clicking "Ignore".

Then i wouldn't be able to straighten out his foolishness.

atm i only see your foolishness.
i never saw luke-jr saying  "hey let's make stupid laws instead which force you into not attacking Bitcoin". he just made a patch that his(!) bitcoind wont put sdice transactions in his blocks. i dont see any problem with that.

its just the nature of p2p: everybody may just act as he want to... no laws needed. just vote with your mhash Wink
1627585429
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1627585429

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1627585429
Reply with quote  #2

1627585429
Report to moderator
1627585429
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1627585429

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1627585429
Reply with quote  #2

1627585429
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1627585429
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1627585429

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1627585429
Reply with quote  #2

1627585429
Report to moderator
1627585429
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1627585429

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1627585429
Reply with quote  #2

1627585429
Report to moderator
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1032



View Profile
March 10, 2013, 03:09:02 PM
 #242

Luke-jr: Would you ever change any of the core principles of bitcoin:

1) The limited supply
2) The decentralised nature

A yes or no will do, there are no inbetweens to take on that.
No.

Bitcoin has been "sold" to everyone as a specific limited supply, and without a centralized bank.
Changing either attribute without the unanimous consent of everyone owning Bitcoins would be basically fraud IMO.
If someone wants to experiment with different rules of this nature, they can/should make/join a new altcoin (like Freicoin did).

ShadowOfHarbringer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 1003


Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952


View Profile
March 10, 2013, 03:38:07 PM
 #243

After this discussion I don't trust you. I do not like where you would take this currency if you had the chance. I think you are an enemy.
If some day, by some "unfortunate accident" you become main developer, i will vote for creating a fork without you.
You could probably save yourself some stress by just clicking "Ignore".

Then i wouldn't be able to straighten out his foolishness.

atm i only see your foolishness.
i never saw luke-jr saying  "hey let's make stupid laws instead which force you into not attacking Bitcoin". he just made a patch that his(!) bitcoind wont put sdice transactions in his blocks. i dont see any problem with that.

If you haven't noticed, he is proposing for all of us to put pressure on SDICE not to generate spam.
And i say that is a foolish waste of time which could be spent by thinking out new, automatic ways of preventing spam.

mobile4ever
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 546
Merit: 500


View Profile
March 10, 2013, 03:57:56 PM
 #244

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.



Great! That is much better news... Thanks.

ShadowOfHarbringer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 1003


Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952


View Profile
March 10, 2013, 04:04:24 PM
 #245

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.
Great! That is much better news... Thanks.

Oh yeah, now less of people will be working on solving the ACTUAL problem which is Bitcoin's suspectibility to spam.

[irony]
Great news indeed it is. Thanks, Luke.
[/irony]

phelix
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1012



View Profile
March 10, 2013, 04:38:20 PM
 #246

[...]
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.
While a monarchy might be an efficient short term government all in all it is clearly inferior to a republic. Power corrupts, thus a monarchy leads to suffering of the people in the long run.

Bitcoin is the opposite of a monarchy - this is one of the reasons I like it. A government should be like Bitcoin - decentralized majority decisions.
mobodick
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840
Merit: 1000



View Profile
March 10, 2013, 04:40:33 PM
 #247

Why would i let ANYBODY mess with my money ?

Why?
Because otherwise you wouldn't even have a computer to have internet on to ask that question.
How do you want to use bitcoin without a fiat economy? Light signaling? Pigeon post?
mobodick
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840
Merit: 1000



View Profile
March 10, 2013, 04:54:54 PM
 #248

Luke-jr: Would you ever change any of the core principles of bitcoin:

1) The limited supply
2) The decentralised nature

A yes or no will do, there are no inbetweens to take on that.
No.

Bitcoin has been "sold" to everyone as a specific limited supply, and without a centralized bank.
Changing either attribute without the unanimous consent of everyone owning Bitcoins would be basically fraud IMO.
If someone wants to experiment with different rules of this nature, they can/should make/join a new altcoin (like Freicoin did).

Unfortunately this is not how things work in the real world.
The bigger bitcoin becomes the more we get into a situation where majority vote will be the only realistic option because it become more and more impropable that you can even ask everyone for consent, never mind get an answer.
ShadowOfHarbringer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 1003


Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952


View Profile
March 10, 2013, 05:04:49 PM
 #249

Why would i let ANYBODY mess with my money ?

Why?
Because otherwise you wouldn't even have a computer to have internet on to ask that question.
How do you want to use bitcoin without a fiat economy? Light signaling? Pigeon post?

This topic has derailed into politics.

Sorry, i am not in the mood to do politics anymore.

justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400
Merit: 1006



View Profile
March 10, 2013, 05:09:08 PM
 #250

This topic has derailed into politics trolling.
Life gets a lot better when you start using the "Ignore" feature.
mobodick
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840
Merit: 1000



View Profile
March 10, 2013, 05:12:15 PM
 #251

Why would i let ANYBODY mess with my money ?

Why?
Because otherwise you wouldn't even have a computer to have internet on to ask that question.
How do you want to use bitcoin without a fiat economy? Light signaling? Pigeon post?

This topic has derailed into politics.

Sorry, i am not in the mood to do politics anymore.
Eeh, i was not talking about politics.
I was talking about evolutionary biology.
We, as a species that created aculture that created economy, have created the right circumstances for bitcoin to emerge.
Moreover, bitcoin needs this substrate of existing economy. Without it there would be no bitcoin.
There is absolutely nothing political about it.
Uglux
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 222
Merit: 100



View Profile
March 10, 2013, 05:15:55 PM
 #252

This topic has derailed into politics trolling.
Life gets a lot better when you start using the "Ignore" feature.

That is called ignorance, and is the reason for a lot of problems. It is not a solution. Tongue
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1032



View Profile
March 10, 2013, 05:18:47 PM
 #253

Luke-jr: Would you ever change any of the core principles of bitcoin:

1) The limited supply
2) The decentralised nature

A yes or no will do, there are no inbetweens to take on that.
No.

Bitcoin has been "sold" to everyone as a specific limited supply, and without a centralized bank.
Changing either attribute without the unanimous consent of everyone owning Bitcoins would be basically fraud IMO.
If someone wants to experiment with different rules of this nature, they can/should make/join a new altcoin (like Freicoin did).

Unfortunately this is not how things work in the real world.
The bigger bitcoin becomes the more we get into a situation where majority vote will be the only realistic option because it become more and more impropable that you can even ask everyone for consent, never mind get an answer.
No, that's the point. Bitcoin is already big enough that changing these unanimous-consent things is impossible.

justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400
Merit: 1006



View Profile
March 10, 2013, 05:28:14 PM
 #254

That is called ignorance, and is the reason for a lot of problems. It is not a solution. Tongue
Free association is the only solution.
anarchy
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 102
Merit: 10


View Profile
March 10, 2013, 06:15:51 PM
 #255

Luke-jr: Would you ever change any of the core principles of bitcoin:

1) The limited supply
2) The decentralised nature

A yes or no will do, there are no inbetweens to take on that.
No.

Bitcoin has been "sold" to everyone as a specific limited supply, and without a centralized bank.
Changing either attribute without the unanimous consent of everyone owning Bitcoins would be basically fraud IMO.
If someone wants to experiment with different rules of this nature, they can/should make/join a new altcoin (like Freicoin did).

Thanks, that's reassuring and all I needed to know.  I don't care about your political alignment beyond that Smiley
Jutarul
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 994
Merit: 1000



View Profile
March 10, 2013, 06:45:22 PM
 #256

What is this discussion about is:
- Misterbigg wants us, community to *socially pressure SatoshiDICE into stopping generating spam*
I don't know the history of this. It looks to me that he already tried to communicate, but the people in charge don't see this as a problem (and maybe conflict of interest has something to do with it). Now he's effectively demonstrating. Besides the noise, I don't see anything wrong with that, per se.

- 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.
That I can agree with.

I also want to point out that the timing of this debate is impeccable, given the discussion about increasing the block size limit. Because an increase in block size without fixing the issue of intentionally unspendable outputs will likely increase the exposure to this attack vector.

So this issue has to be sorted out before we allow the network to shift to the next gear.

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
Jutarul
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 994
Merit: 1000



View Profile
March 10, 2013, 07:02:38 PM
 #257

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 !
Please stop assuming that bitcoin was designed perfectly and open your mind to reality. It's a shared resource which is being exploited according to a set of rules.

The correct solution to the street pissing scenario is to give everyone an incentive to clean up their own piss.

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 10, 2013, 08:54:48 PM
Last edit: March 11, 2013, 09:40:10 AM by solex
 #258

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.

Last I heard the miners are being subsidized by the market assigning $1150 to the block reward, even if no transactions are included!

Since "flooding" is being evidenced by "dead puppies" then one solution lies in this approach:

For sources which exhibit dead puppy behavior the fee required for inclusion in a block needs to increase exponentially for each additional transaction

Up front I will say this is a technical challenge, but not impossible, and there are some very capable people here who could take a shot at it.

SatoshiDice needs to keep going so that when a change like above is made it will organically force a change in behavior (which will be SD internalizing or netting transaction flow). Then we can have some confidence that a recognized attack vector is blocked.

CharlesPonzi
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 10



View Profile
March 11, 2013, 08:29:56 AM
 #259

What about reducing the current .005 fee and making it mandatory so that you cant actually spend amounts lower than the fee. If it becomes too expensive to send the minimum amount you can always reduce further.

Allowing SD to send tx of .000001 when the fee is .005 is part of the problem.

tldr everyone should pay the same fee rather than variable fees.




I landed in this country with $2.50 in cash and $1 million in hopes, and those hopes never left me.
WishIStartedSooner
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 11, 2013, 01:16:04 PM
 #260

OK. I saved this whole discussion on my hard drive so that I can show people what kind of person you are when other discussions arise. I hope you don't have a problem with that.

Why?

Having an opposing opinion about where bitcoin should go doesn't make him an immoral? In this case it just makes him a skeptic at worst?


Doesn't seem like he's advocating any form of communism, fascism, statism, or pedophilia...
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!