SatoshiDice And the root of all evil

[Quantus]

The Fork on Monday night was not the result of a bug. It was Greed.

Its a serious issue. One that can not be fixed by cramming more transactions into each block. Every time we make Blocks bigger fees get lower. In the long run many many years
from today When block rewards are virtually nonexistent we will need those fees to pay the miners.

How long before some one spins off a clone of SatosihiDice? Their will me others. The block chain spam or SD spam as many call it will just grow.
 The Block chain is growing to fast.  And the actions of major pools in the last week have been abhorrent.  It is not their Right to just pull numbers out of their ass and decree the size of the block header.

Shame on you all.

[1714931474]

1714931474

[1714931474]

1714931474

[1714931474]

1714931474

[1714931474]

1714931474

[FreeMoney]

Mmm, hmm. Bitcoin is awesome and will change the world! As long as everyone in the world agrees to act in a certain way despite what their personal goals and motivations are.

I think no.

[lucif]

If only ONE fokin lottery can get network to hit its soft and/or hard limits, then this network is trash.

What will happen when 1000s like sdice come in?

[mwag]

Enlighten us, oh wise and all knowing OP, what should we do?

OP obviously started another new thread about this because he has the answers!

Tell us, what are our Bitcoin Rights?

[Quantus]

If only ONE fokin lottery can get network to hit its soft and/or hard limits, then this network is trash.

What will happen when 1000s like sdice come in?

Exactly my point !

We must ether help them find a new system to gamble or push them out of the block chain with higher mandatory fees.

[mwag]

If only ONE fokin lottery can get network to hit its soft and/or hard limits, then this network is trash.

What will happen when 1000s like sdice come in?

And here, Satan himself joins the discussion. You are old and wise. Show us the way. Surely you know what to do!

[Quantus]

I don't understand why they (SD) can't bring all gambling in house the way MtGox dose with trading.

[Quantus]

I don't understand why they (SD) can't bring all gambling in house the way MtGox dose with trading.

Because they don't want to.

If you don't like S.DICE don't relay or confirm their transactions.

The major pools are now in control and they are doing the opposite they are binding over backwards to serv them.

[Ausversucht]

The Fork on Monday night was not the result of a bug. It was Greed.

Its a serious issue. One that can not be fixed by cramming more transactions into each block. Every time we make Blocks bigger fees get lower. In the long run many many years
from today When block rewards are virtually nonexistent we will need those fees to pay the miners.

How long before some one spins off a clone of SatosihiDice? Their will me others. The block chain spam or SD spam as many call it will just grow.
 The Block chain is growing to fast.  And the actions of major pools in the last week have been abhorrent.  It is not your Right to just pull numbers out of your ass and decree the size of the block header.

Shame on you all.

Um, pretty sure that making the blocks bigger just allows for more room to fit transactions allowing you to collect MORE fees.  As long as more operators only accept transactions with a minimum fee, then we all win.  I always include a fee with my tx either .01 or .005  

Multiply those by 10000+ tx and you will see what you could be missing in a few years when the network really takes off.  We are really just in out infancy.

Also even if you adjust the minimum fee somehow to account for the rise in bitcoin price, you will still be winning because more people will likely pay it and you will collect more.

[Quantus]

Making the blocks bigger also pushes out full nodes that rely on low bandwidth connections. And it dose make fees smaller. It allows would be attackers to spam the net work with pointless transactions. WE must not allow block headers to grow or Fees to drop it will be the Death of bitcoin.

[knightmb]

There is no such thing as a technical solution to a social problem. Bitcoin is designed to allow this and thus there is no technical solution for it as long as the rules allow.

[Quantus]

We must call out the major mining pool, tell them to reject all micro transactions with out fees. We must pressure them to cap the headers at their current size.
We need to point our fingers at them and shame them for what they are doing. Bitcoin miners need to leave the major pools if they refuse this.

[Raoul Duke]

There is no such thing as a technical solution to a social problem. Bitcoin is designed to allow this and thus there is no technical solution for it as long as the rules allow.

You're back!
Hard to stay away from $45 bitcoins, hein?

Sorry for the off-topic

[Quantus]

It is the responsibility of the Bitcoin mining community to find pools that fight for the Block chain not work against it.

[SRoulette]

It is the responsibility of the Bitcoin mining community to find pools that fight for the Block chain not work against it.

we are wittiness's to a digital democracy in action.

One successful business's selfish actions have an impact on the rest of the democracy but obviously not enough for the majority to turn against it.
You need to remember that most people will also vote by putting their own self interests above others as their guide.

As a small casino operator myself I feel bitcoin is (in some ways) lucky to have a selfish business like satoshidice being so stubborn as they are.
Bitcoin has a long road ahead of it and as others say if we cant handle one noisy vendor then what happens when we finally get a malicious entity on the network that is not motivated by greed (as are all businesses) but by the destruction of the network.

We are already seeing the network adapt, the exclusion of satoshidice spammy transactions (we are also guilty of this to a lesser extent) and the raising of the blocksize limit.


Our little democracy is growing, new laws are being added and we are having some small teething issues along the way. if you dont like it you are free to attempt succession 

[Quantus]

I'm pissed they moved my thread. Why they fuck did they hide it in Service discussion?

[Raoul Duke]

I'm pissed they moved my thread. Why they fuck did they hide it in Service discussion?

Because it's discussing a service? 


But you didn't really need me to tell you that, did you?

[ShireSilver]

I don't understand why they (SD) can't bring all gambling in house the way MtGox dose with trading.

Because Satoshi Dice is doing it the right way, and Mt Gox is doing it the wrong way.

You should consider that requiring users to register is a dangerous centralization that inevitably leads to corruption. Bitcoin is a new phenomenon that requires new thinking, using the old paradigm doesn't make sense when the main point of bitcoin is to obsolete the old paradigm.

Your point is the equivalent of "I don't understand why bitcoin can't require named accounts the way Federal Reserve based banks do it."

[Quantus]

I don't understand why they (SD) can't bring all gambling in house the way MtGox dose with trading.

Because Satoshi Dice is doing it the right way, and Mt Gox is doing it the wrong way.

You should consider that requiring users to register is a dangerous centralization that inevitably leads to corruption. Bitcoin is a new phenomenon that requires new thinking, using the old paradigm doesn't make sense when the main point of bitcoin is to obsolete the old paradigm.

Your point is the equivalent of "I don't understand why bitcoin can't require named accounts the way Federal Reserve based banks do it."

One of the worst Straw man arguments ever. That or your trolling.

[ShireSilver]

I don't understand why they (SD) can't bring all gambling in house the way MtGox dose with trading.

Because Satoshi Dice is doing it the right way, and Mt Gox is doing it the wrong way.

You should consider that requiring users to register is a dangerous centralization that inevitably leads to corruption. Bitcoin is a new phenomenon that requires new thinking, using the old paradigm doesn't make sense when the main point of bitcoin is to obsolete the old paradigm.

Your point is the equivalent of "I don't understand why bitcoin can't require named accounts the way Federal Reserve based banks do it."

One of the worst Straw man arguments ever. That or your trolling.

So you're saying you don't have a real response? Thought so.

[zx9r]

I think that the bitcoin system should be able to deal with a large number of transactions without collapsing. It is still at a very early stage. If right now it has problems because a one and only s.dice it will collapse in the near future when more people use it as payment platform.

[Elwar]

If only ONE fokin lottery can get network to hit its soft and/or hard limits, then this network is trash.

What will happen when 1000s like sdice come in?

We must

WE must not allow

Who is this "we"? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

[greyhawk]

Maybe he means the voices. 

[Quantus]

In the coming years their will be more and more block spam on the Net work the way you fix it is to impose fees not lower them. A % based fee is better at any level then a flat rate of FREE. Right now we are moving towards a Free system to send money.

I don't understand why they (SD) can't bring all gambling in house the way MtGox dose with trading.

Because Satoshi Dice is doing it the right way, and Mt Gox is doing it the wrong way.

You should consider that requiring users to register is a dangerous centralization that inevitably leads to corruption. Bitcoin is a new phenomenon that requires new thinking, using the old paradigm doesn't make sense when the main point of bitcoin is to obsolete the old paradigm.

Your point is the equivalent of "I don't understand why bitcoin can't require named accounts the way Federal Reserve based banks do it."

One of the worst Straw man arguments ever. That or your trolling.

So you're saying you don't have a real response? Thought so.

You imply I want SD dice to use verified accounts I never said that. I said we need to help them bring their gambling system in house or pressure them to rise minim bets You don't have to use verified account to do that.  You should be more concerned with the centralization of the mining community and the vulnerability that rises from that. Extortion, bribery and collusion.

[Quantus]

I think that the bitcoin system should be able to deal with a large number of transactions without collapsing. It is still at a very early stage. If right now it has problems because a one and only s.dice it will collapse in the near future when more people use it as payment platform.

Its already dealing with a shit load of transactions every hour. We need to cut those Transactions back to a manageable level and we can. If we shut down SD dice and others like it we could go for many years with out having to deal with this issue again.   

[Quantus]

If only ONE fokin lottery can get network to hit its soft and/or hard limits, then this network is trash.

What will happen when 1000s like sdice come in?

We must

WE must not allow

Who is this "we"? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

Bitcoin miners. They have the power to leave mining pools they do not agree with. These mining pools are opening up the Network to attack by lowering micro transaction fees. By  rising the size of the block headers. WE "the mining community" Can not allow this!

[thezerg]

In the coming years their will be more and more block spam on the Net work the way you fix it is to impose fees not lower them. A % based fee is better at any level then a flat rate of FREE. Right now we are moving towards a Free system to send money.

I don't understand why they (SD) can't bring all gambling in house the way MtGox dose with trading.

Because Satoshi Dice is doing it the right way, and Mt Gox is doing it the wrong way.

You should consider that requiring users to register is a dangerous centralization that inevitably leads to corruption. Bitcoin is a new phenomenon that requires new thinking, using the old paradigm doesn't make sense when the main point of bitcoin is to obsolete the old paradigm.

Your point is the equivalent of "I don't understand why bitcoin can't require named accounts the way Federal Reserve based banks do it."

One of the worst Straw man arguments ever. That or your trolling.

So you're saying you don't have a real response? Thought so.

You imply I want SD dice to use verified accounts I never said that. I said we need to help them bring their gambling system in house or pressure them to rise minim bets You don't have to use verified account to do that.  You should be more concerned with the centralization of the mining community and the vulnerability that rises from that. Extortion, bribery and collusion.

You are not considering all kinds of legal ramifications.  Today, does SD hold your $?  No.  Is there any physical machine or location where the gambling occurs?  Not really, its just a transfer on the distributed blockchain.  And is there any way SD can determine the source of an incoming bet?  No.  Once something like a centralized web site is implemented its very easy to pressure the system into denying all USA based IP addresses (for example), or even require verified accounts.

Note, I have no financial interest in SD and in fact dislike gambling beyond a couple of friends playing for nickels.  But that does not mean I think the blockchain (or anything) should enforce my personal views.


Also, I think that Bitcoin is too small right now to drive successful services to an alt-coin.  And there is plenty of mining hash power right now.  And its rising.  The market has spoken.  Let's see the hash rate actually descend dramatically before we start imagining that miners are getting a bad deal, and need txn space competition to increase txn fees.

[Quantus]

OK Think about it like this
The block headers are like a Centrifugal governor allowing for proportional controls. The Mining pools are trying to remove this governor.
 If we can't shut down SDice then we must do nothing. Eventually SDice will become unprofitable due to higher fees. Nothing in life is free. 

[Uglux]

There is no such thing as a technical solution to a social problem. Bitcoin is designed to allow this and thus there is no technical solution for it as long as the rules allow.

I think you are wrong. What about the internet? Consider any modern communication technology for example, if you like it more abstract.
Maybe the time will come, that technology makes money obsolete. Or least patches it, like bitcoin

[zx9r]

I think that the bitcoin system should be able to deal with a large number of transactions without collapsing. It is still at a very early stage. If right now it has problems because a one and only s.dice it will collapse in the near future when more people use it as payment platform.

Its already dealing with a shit load of transactions every hour. We need to cut those Transactions back to a manageable level and we can. If we shut down SD dice and others like it we could go for many years with out having to deal with this issue again.   

If one simple application makes the processing of transactions an issue we have a big problem.

As an example, VISA current transactions per hour is several orders of magnitude higher than the current bitcoin system. I we want to compete with it the solution is not make less transactions.

[Quantus]

I think that the bitcoin system should be able to deal with a large number of transactions without collapsing. It is still at a very early stage. If right now it has problems because a one and only s.dice it will collapse in the near future when more people use it as payment platform.

Its already dealing with a shit load of transactions every hour. We need to cut those Transactions back to a manageable level and we can. If we shut down SD dice and others like it we could go for many years with out having to deal with this issue again.  

If one simple application makes the processing of transactions an issue we have a big problem.

As an example, VISA current transactions per hour is several orders of magnitude higher than the current bitcoin system. I we want to compete with it the solution is not make less transactions.

Some 80% of all network transactions are trash. Pointless 0.0000001 payments that will never be spent. I simply mean we should do our best to cut those transactions. If SDice was never invented then the block chain would still be under 1GB in size. Think about it. If we ever hope to deal with the flood of transactions that will surly come in our future we must learn to deal with this issue today.

[repentance]

I think that the bitcoin system should be able to deal with a large number of transactions without collapsing. It is still at a very early stage. If right now it has problems because a one and only s.dice it will collapse in the near future when more people use it as payment platform.

Exactly.  And if escalating fees are the only way it can deal with large volumes of transactions, then it's going to be pretty useless for P2P micro-payments, rivalling PayPal, or anything else - you might as well just use your credit card or bank transfers and spare yourself the hassle of acquiring Bitcoin and dealing with extreme volatility.  Bitcoin needs to be able to process massive volumes of transactions in real time in order to be viable as a payment protocol.  Delaying the problem by cutting out trivial transactions isn't a solution - especially when gambling is one of Bitcoin's growth industries.

[Quantus]

I think that the bitcoin system should be able to deal with a large number of transactions without collapsing. It is still at a very early stage. If right now it has problems because a one and only s.dice it will collapse in the near future when more people use it as payment platform.

Exactly.  And if escalating fees are the only way it can deal with large volumes of transactions, then it's going to be pretty useless for P2P micro-payments, rivalling PayPal, or anything else - you might as well just use your credit card or bank transfers and spare yourself the hassle of acquiring Bitcoin and dealing with extreme volatility.  Bitcoin needs to be able to process massive volumes of transactions in real time in order to be viable as a payment protocol.  Delaying the problem by cutting out trivial transactions isn't a solution - especially when gambling is one of Bitcoin's growth industries.

Would you rather us "miners and every one who runs a full node" filter out these large volumes of pointless transactions? Would you rather it be up to each person on the network to decide who and when a transaction is relayed along to the next node? A filter has already been made to let anyone Censer transactions by the amount and or amount/fee or by origin.

A large number of full nodes have already begun to filter out SDice transactions.

Or maybe you would like us to remove the Block header limits all together? That would be fun I could stick a full copy of LoTR's Blue ray 13.2 GB movie into each block I Find.


And I disagree with the idea this is only delaying the problem. I"m sure we could go for 4 or 5 years with massive growth with out issues like this again if we let the natural order of things push SDice out of the chain. After the blockchain has been purified of these types of transactions and we hit the hard limit again; only then should we have a yearly or monthly reassessment of the block header's appropriate size.
  

[zebedee]

The Fork on Monday night was not the result of a bug. It was Greed.

Its a serious issue. One that can not be fixed by cramming more transactions into each block. Every time we make Blocks bigger fees get lower.

Eagerly awaiting your explanation of how come fees have been so far above zero for so long, and only recently have we even started to approach the state where blocks are full.

So why are fees not zero?  I look forward to your greed-based explanation.

[zebedee]

We must call out the major mining pool, tell them to reject all micro transactions with out fees. We must pressure them to cap the headers at their current size.
We need to point our fingers at them and shame them for what they are doing. Bitcoin miners need to leave the major pools if they refuse this.

I'm sure they'd be happy to do just that if you refund them the difference.

[zebedee]

I think that the bitcoin system should be able to deal with a large number of transactions without collapsing. It is still at a very early stage. If right now it has problems because a one and only s.dice it will collapse in the near future when more people use it as payment platform.

Exactly.  And if escalating fees are the only way it can deal with large volumes of transactions, then it's going to be pretty useless for P2P micro-payments, rivalling PayPal, or anything else - you might as well just use your credit card or bank transfers and spare yourself the hassle of acquiring Bitcoin and dealing with extreme volatility.  Bitcoin needs to be able to process massive volumes of transactions in real time in order to be viable as a payment protocol.  Delaying the problem by cutting out trivial transactions isn't a solution - especially when gambling is one of Bitcoin's growth industries.

And there's the beautiful thing - the problem solves itself, with escalating fees encouraging innovation and solutions in a dozen different directions.

How much better than a wise-man bureaucrat is that?

I hope you're part of the solution and not just going to whine about it until a better man steps up to the plate.

[zebedee]

Would you rather us "miners and every one who runs a full node" filter out these large volumes of pointless transactions? Would you rather it be up to each person on the network to decide who and when a transaction is relayed along to the next node? A filter has already been made to let anyone Censer transactions by the amount and or amount/fee or by origin.

A large number of full nodes have already begun to filter out SDice transactions.

Or maybe you would like us to remove the Block header limits all together? That would be fun I could stick a full copy of LoTR's Blue ray 13.2 GB movie into each block I Find.


And I disagree with the idea this is only delaying the problem. I"m sure we could go for 4 or 5 years with massive growth with out issues like this again if we let the natural order of things push SDice out of the chain. After the blockchain has been purified of these types of transactions and we hit the hard limit again; only then should we have a yearly or monthly reassessment of the block header's appropriate size.
 

Whether you realize it or not, you live most of your life in a state of anarchy (consider personal relations etc - who's overseeing those for you?), and are very happy with it.

No reason why anarchy won't work just as well for BTC transaction processing.  If you believe something's wrong, you have to persuade others, but you certainly have room to improve in that department.

[Quantus]

The Fork on Monday night was not the result of a bug. It was Greed.

Its a serious issue. One that can not be fixed by cramming more transactions into each block. Every time we make Blocks bigger fees get lower.

Eagerly awaiting your explanation of how come fees have been so far above zero for so long, and only recently have we even started to approach the state where blocks are full.

So why are fees not zero?  I look forward to your greed-based explanation.

Read the white paper. No seriously you don't seem to have any understanding of the code. The main reason fees exist is to prevent spam.

[Quantus]

Would you rather us "miners and every one who runs a full node" filter out these large volumes of pointless transactions? Would you rather it be up to each person on the network to decide who and when a transaction is relayed along to the next node? A filter has already been made to let anyone Censer transactions by the amount and or amount/fee or by origin.

A large number of full nodes have already begun to filter out SDice transactions.

Or maybe you would like us to remove the Block header limits all together? That would be fun I could stick a full copy of LoTR's Blue ray 13.2 GB movie into each block I Find.


And I disagree with the idea this is only delaying the problem. I"m sure we could go for 4 or 5 years with massive growth with out issues like this again if we let the natural order of things push SDice out of the chain. After the blockchain has been purified of these types of transactions and we hit the hard limit again; only then should we have a yearly or monthly reassessment of the block header's appropriate size.
 

Whether you realize it or not, you live most of your life in a state of anarchy (consider personal relations etc - who's overseeing those for you?), and are very happy with it.

No reason why anarchy won't work just as well for BTC transaction processing.  If you believe something's wrong, you have to persuade others, but you certainly have room to improve in that department.

Ok Anarchy means "order with out power" look it up. There is no order in a system were each node gets to have their own rules. Now am I doing a good job at persuading people no? No Clearly I suck at this but that dose not mean I'm wrong.

[Quantus]

We must call out the major mining pool, tell them to reject all micro transactions with out fees. We must pressure them to cap the headers at their current size.
We need to point our fingers at them and shame them for what they are doing. Bitcoin miners need to leave the major pools if they refuse this.

I'm sure they'd be happy to do just that if you refund them the difference.

Refund them what? They don't make any money from fee-less transactions.

[astutiumRob]

Maybe he means the voices. 

I asked them, the voices said No...

[peewee]

Not seeing any more SD transactions on blockchain and the last several successful blocks have had pathetically low transaction volumes.   Did something get implemented?

[Raoul Duke]

Not seeing any more SD transactions on blockchain and the last several successful blocks have had pathetically low transaction volumes.   Did something get implemented?

SD was moving servers. They should be back up now.

[Quantus]

I'm compelled to bump this one last time people should be warned.

"All users of Bitcoin-Qt/bitcoind versions 0.7.2 and earlier are required to upgrade to 0.8.1 or apply a manual workaround by May 15."

They will try it again. And once they have their well be no going back.

[Jobe7]

It is the responsibility of the Bitcoin mining community to find pools that fight for the Block chain not work against it.

we are wittiness's to a digital democracy in action.

One successful business's selfish actions have an impact on the rest of the democracy but obviously not enough for the majority to turn against it.
You need to remember that most people will also vote by putting their own self interests above others as their guide.

As a small casino operator myself I feel bitcoin is (in some ways) lucky to have a selfish business like satoshidice being so stubborn as they are.
Bitcoin has a long road ahead of it and as others say if we cant handle one noisy vendor then what happens when we finally get a malicious entity on the network that is not motivated by greed (as are all businesses) but by the destruction of the network.

We are already seeing the network adapt, the exclusion of satoshidice spammy transactions (we are also guilty of this to a lesser extent) and the raising of the blocksize limit.


Our little democracy is growing, new laws are being added and we are having some small teething issues along the way. if you dont like it you are free to attempt succession 

QFT