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.

[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.