Bitcoin Forum
October 20, 2017, 09:53:46 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Now that we are heading to BIP 148...  (Read 938 times)
pooya87
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064


Buy bitcoin they said... who listened?


View Profile
June 09, 2017, 03:38:25 AM
 #21

Why are the developers and/or miners not enforcing "first-come-first-serve" rule in confirming transactions?

pretty simple!
because that will open up way for an easy and huge attack vector which will possibly cripple the network!

imagine if it was first come first serve without the who pays the high fees. someone can easily flood the network with millions of small transactions with small fees and at some point it will be his turn and we have to wait forever until those millions of transactions are confirmed so that we can get our turn.

1508536426
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508536426

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508536426
Reply with quote  #2

1508536426
Report to moderator
1508536426
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508536426

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508536426
Reply with quote  #2

1508536426
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1508536426
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508536426

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508536426
Reply with quote  #2

1508536426
Report to moderator
deisik
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1358



View Profile
June 09, 2017, 08:45:08 AM
 #22

Fees are not the problem, scaling is.

Someone here said that the miners will just "spam" the blockchain with their own transactions (they will just be paying themselves the high fees) to make the blocks full again, so scaling won't resolve the high fee.
"Someone here" is making baseless speculation.

This has never been done before to a troublesome degree. So why would miners do it now? Did they just suddenly decide to go rogue and attack Bitcoin?
Not only that, such an attack would be unaffordable to maintain.

Before scaling was ever an issue, Bitcoin ran fine. The blocks were not full, because there weren't that many transactions.
Wanna know why? Because there weren't any miners spamming the network (and there won't be), but there also weren't many people using it (and now there are)

To make your own point somehow different from "baseless speculation", you would have to answer a few simple questions yourself. In fact, just one simple question. To wit, you would still have to explain who is behind the spam attacks. If miners can't allow to run the costs of these attacks, then who is running them, after all? If mining is heavily centralized, there is more than enough economic reason for miners to collude and spam the network with these useless transactions. Since they are the ones who will be receiving the fees, the whole shebang becomes perfectly feasible and makes perfect sense from a financial point of view. In fact, it would be quite profitable if the miners managed to bid up the fees through that

Which seems to be the case as we actually see the fees escalating

Cosbycoin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420



View Profile
June 11, 2017, 07:35:16 PM
 #23

Why are the developers and/or miners not enforcing "first-come-first-serve" rule in confirming transactions?

pretty simple!
because that will open up way for an easy and huge attack vector which will possibly cripple the network!

imagine if it was first come first serve without the who pays the high fees. someone can easily flood the network with millions of small transactions with small fees and at some point it will be his turn and we have to wait forever until those millions of transactions are confirmed so that we can get our turn.
Yeah, the current treatment is I guess the best one it is on the need based those who are in need to get their transaction done earlier they pay more to confirm the transaction and those who don’t need an early or soon confirmation they don’t pay more. So, this is good I guess.

Bonpay
Global Blockchain Solution for Financial Freedom
Initial Token Sale ■■■ Whitepaper ■■■ Official thread ■■■ Slack
Bonpay Wallet & Сard - reliable bridge between crypto and fiat world
■■■ Always stay one step ahead ■■■
Iranus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 462


View Profile
June 11, 2017, 09:46:08 PM
 #24

>> Why are the developers and/or miners not enforcing "first-come-first-serve" rule in confirming transactions?
Simple question gets a simple answer:  because more transactions are being sent than the amount that the network can handle.

If you based it on that, it would be on the assumption that every transaction has to be confirmed while the network is in this state.  That would mean that as demand continues to exceed supply, the amount of time you have to wait for your transaction to be confirmed gets longer and longer.

The point of fees is to prioritise your transaction so that it gets in earlier.  Of course recently this has changed in that you have to pay a fee, but it's still similar in that to get your transaction confirmed earlier it's justified for you to pay a higher fee.

Plus, this isn't something that can be implemented anyway because miners are working on a profit incentive.  All talk about this would just be about morals speculation of what could theoretically happen, even when it's extremely unlikely.

Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!