Blockchain.info Inadvertently Enabling SatoshiDICE Transaction Spam!

[misterbigg]

Now that Blockchain.info has been down, the network transaction rate is down by a factor of 66%. And yet the Bitcoin price is completely stable. This is evidence that SatoshiDICE's influence on the Bitcoin price is a lot less than often claimed.

But we can also see that Blockchain.info is the main driver of traffic to SatoshiDICE! This is because they provide direct links to gamble your wallet coins on SatoshIDICE. Since Blockchain.info has been down we see the true impact of this (paid?) advertising.

If Blockchain.info / piuk wanted to do the right thing they could just remove the SatoshiDICE direct gambling links from http://www.blockchain.info until Erik Voorhees fixes the transaction spam using one of the three methods I suggested, or implements his own method that is more network friendly.

Also, it would be nice to list the addresses for the other gaming sites. They don't spam the network the same way that SatoshiDICE does, so any traffic which is diverted to these other sites will help the network.

[1715186753]

1715186753

[1715186753]

1715186753

[1715186753]

1715186753

[thebaron]

"This is evidence that SatoshiDICE's influence on the Bitcoin price is a lot less than often claimed."

Umm, doesn't your statement kind of prove that it is?  No easy access to dice = much more stable Bitcoin price.

[misterbigg]

Umm, doesn't your statement kind of prove that it is?  No easy access to dice = much more stable Bitcoin price.

I think the evidence either way is probably thin. I would expect that if SatoshiDICE had a strong influence on the Bitcoin price then we should see the price drop now that gamblers don't have easy clicking access to Blockchain.info.

What I believe this information tells us is that Blockchain.info's "immediate gratification" of playing sounds to the user when they receive the SatoshiDICE transaction spam indicating a lost bet is responsible for driving most of the traffic to SatoshiDICE.

[rudrigorc2]

If Blockchain.info / piuk wanted to do the right thing they could just remove the SatoshiDICE direct gambling links from http://www.blockchain.info until Erik Voorhees fixes the transaction spam using one of the three methods I suggested, or implements his own method that is more network friendly.

I support this. do the right thing.

[Littleshop]

Now that Blockchain.info has been down, the network transaction rate is down by a factor of 66%. And yet the Bitcoin price is completely stable. This is evidence that SatoshiDICE's influence on the Bitcoin price is a lot less than often claimed.

But we can also see that Blockchain.info is the main driver of traffic to SatoshiDICE! This is because they provide direct links to gamble your wallet coins on SatoshIDICE. Since Blockchain.info has been down we see the true impact of this (paid?) advertising.

If Blockchain.info / piuk wanted to do the right thing they could just remove the SatoshiDICE direct gambling links from http://www.blockchain.info until Erik Voorhees fixes the transaction spam using one of the three methods I suggested, or implements his own method that is more network friendly.

How many anti Satoshi dice threads are you going to open?

Really, you are the one filling our computers and screens with spam/fud/crap more then those you accuse.

[uhoh]

How many anti Satoshi dice threads are you going to open?

Really, you are the one filling our computers and screens with spam/fud/crap more then those you accuse.

+1

[Bitobsessed]

For all that is holy!  Another thread about this.  I suggested Prozac earlier, but what I think you need is some Valium.
Dude just go beat a dead horse.

[Astro]

This is more about all the money SD is making rather than some disingenuous blockchain spamming claims.  Some people are more successful than you, deal with it.

[WiW]

I think OP is trying to open a competing business and wants to push SD out. Not sure what his business model is but I think it's SPAMMING THE BOARDS instead of "spamming" the blockchain.

Of course, SDice is paying for blockchain space and miners - the ones who actually deal with SDice "spam" don't seem to  have any issue with it. But mister OP here is NOT PAYING FOR BOARD SPACE.

Let's patch up the boards software to get rid of spam from OP! Let's open seventeen threads about it!

[misterbigg]

This is more about all the money SD is making rather than some disingenuous blockchain spamming claims.  Some people are more successful than you, deal with it.

Not at all. This is why you don't hear a peep from me about SRoulette, they found an alternative to the transaction spam.

Blockchain.info doesn't have direct links to SRoulette. But if they did, it would actually help with the spam because it would drive some people there instead of SD.

[piuk]

Blockchain hosts the SatoshiDICE bet form for free

I do not agree with the spam argument myself since the amount of transactions made today will be insignificant compared to the amount needed in future if bitcoin continues to grow. As long as transactions all include the correct fee why should some be deemed "more useful" than others.

[poly]

Blockchain hosts the SatoshiDICE bet form for free

I do not agree with the spam argument myself since the amount of transactions made today will be insignificant compared to the amount needed in future if bitcoin continues to grow. As long as transactions all include the correct fee why should some be deemed "more useful" than others.

+1.

If you still are worried about the transaction spam, then it is not a problem with SatoshiDICE - it is a problem with the bitcoin protocol / default rules.

[misterbigg]

Blockchain hosts the SatoshiDICE bet form for free

Good to know, thanks. I will update the thread.

I do not agree with the spam argument myself since the amount of transactions made today will be insignificant compared to the amount needed in future if bitcoin continues to grow. As long as transactions all include the correct fee why should some be deemed "more useful" than others.

You're talking specifically about only the volume. But the SatoshiDICE issue is more accurately described as "sending amounts that are considerably less than the cost to send them." No matter what the condition of the network, there will always be an amount which is less than the cost required to send it. In all cases these become economically unviable to spend and yet they cannot be pruned.

Having developed the code for storing the block chain as an in-memory database, surely you understand that having these unprunable transaction outputs is a hindrance.

SRoulette already implemented technical measures to prevent creating these econmically unviable outputs, why can't SatoshiDICE?

If you still are worried about the transaction spam, then it is not a problem with SatoshiDICE - it is a problem with the bitcoin protocol / default rules.

It is definitely also a problem with the bitcoin rules but since bitcoin is in beta, it is in the best interests of the growth of the network to use every means available to put a stop to the bad behavior. An interim measure of removing the SatoshiDICE gambling form would help the network for at least a little while, and it would also put financial pressure on SD shareholders and principals to fix their code.

Again, note that SRoulette offers identical games but doesn't spam the network. I agree with you that we need a permanent fix in the bitcoin rules, but can't you concede that SatoshiDICE should clean up it's act and be a good network citizen?

[parseval]

My current point of view here is that the "satoshiDICE Transaction Spam" problem is not any fault of satoshiDice.  A payment network needs to be able to support a large volume of requests, even if they are small.  If rules need to be set in place about size and frequency of transactions, then they would really need to be addressed in the form of a design change to the software which will then enforce whatever that change is --  whether it be to change the network protocol to support faster transactions or discourage some behavior from an enduser.   In this way, the problem would be solved for future occurrences of a similar nature.  Asking one site to change its behavior does not address the root of the problem.

If I can offer some speculation regarding your correlation between blockchain.info being down and the volume of transactions from satoshiDICE..  it might be more than simply their wallet services' form to place bets.   Blockchain.info has a websocket where you can subscribe, in real-time, to transactions sent to a specific bitcoin address.  I imagine that if there are people out there using bots to bet with and generate a lot of transactions, they might make use of such data, and blockchain.info is the fastest and most accessible way to get this information.  When it goes down, any algorithms depending on its real-time data will be suspended as well.   But this is just speculation..  I haven't looked (or plan to look) at any of your data showing that the correlation even exists between volume of dice transactions and blockchain.info's downtime.

[SlipperySlope]

Blockchain hosts the SatoshiDICE bet form for free

What is Blockchain's reason for having only one game form?

I suppose that it might be simply a legacy from when Satoshi Dice was created - something fun for someone new to bitcoins - only one click away on their wallet.

[dscotese]

Blockchain hosts the SatoshiDICE bet form for free

I do not agree with the spam argument myself since the amount of transactions made today will be insignificant compared to the amount needed in future if bitcoin continues to grow. As long as transactions all include the correct fee why should some be deemed "more useful" than others.

I concur.  I think that SDice transactions provide the means and motivation to solve any "Tragedy of the Commons" problems with the blockchain.  I also think that the accepted formula that recommends higher transaction fees for larger volume transactions (nice that it's only a recommendation) is an excellent (and effective) solution.

The argument about unspendable TxOuts, I agree with, but even if piuk cut off SDice over the issue, the issue remains a problem that will remain as necessary to solve as it was when blockchain.info was encouraging SDice.

If the nightmare scenario comes about, most of the storage requirements for the reference client will be eaten up by addresses with "economically unspendable" TXOuts.  Do I have that right?  Will that kill bitcoin?  I think this is a race between two trends:

• storage/transmission costs dropping (eventually spending a satoshi will cost less than a satoshi)
• the growth of the unprunable txouts

Meanwhile, the increasing price of bitcoin speeds up the first trend and slows down the second.  So if you really want to help, buy more and hoard it

[mb300sd]

Please at least form the x5 and x10 transactions like this:

https://blockchain.info/tx/4e2f166db0e986082bf27e5292dfc86b954d2544783c1e2fa4679867e3f6a2f8

has the same result and reduces the number of transactions.