Version 0.3.18

[jgarzik]

I also support a third transaction type for timestamp hash sized arbitrary data.  There's no point not having one since you can already do it anyway.  It would tell nodes they don't need to bother to index it.

Yes it is possible already.  But it is disappointing to encourage main bitcoin chain to be used for generic data storage.

When a large amount of users are non-currency data users, currency users will face longer delays, higher costs, and decreased ability to send free transactions.  Currency users will be discouraged by these factors from using bitcoin.

All these folks talking about the glory of the free market conveniently omit that there only one, monopolized market right now -- the mainline chain.  This implies decreased competition versus many markets (==many chains) and tragedy of the commons, as everybody shoves all their data onto the main chain.

An alternate chain that encourages data storage would better serve data users, leaving the main chain to better serve currency users.

[1714052925]

1714052925

[1714052925]

1714052925

[1714052925]

1714052925

[1714052925]

1714052925

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

Just wait until somebody encodes kiddie porn into the chain - it would stay there forever.

It is impossible to completely prevent that kind of abuse unfortunately.
For example, someone could encode information in the decimal figures of amount sent, or in a "vanity plate" Bitcoin address.

Of course, but that is not my point.
The point is that if would possible to store extra data in Bitcoin protocol by design, then government would have the argument like "you can store extra data (including kiddie porn) - protocol is designed that way and default client allows it".

Taking this possibility away in the default client takes that argument away and makes Bitcoin much more resistant to kiddie-porn-propaganda-attack.

[ribuck]

When a large amount of users are non-currency data users, currency users will face ... decreased ability to send free transactions.

There would be no incentive for a miner to process free domain name registration transactions.

Broadening the use of the Bitcoin chain strengthens it. If 55% of currency users generate maliciously, they can corrupt the chain. But if there are also domain name registrars generating, you would have to corrupt 55% of them too, and different interest groups aren't corruptible in the same way.

Satoshi has created a wonderful bird, but if his early adopters don't allow it to soar it will never achieve its potential.

[ribuck]

The point is that if would possible to store extra data in Bitcoin protocol by design, then government would have the argument like "you can store extra data (including kiddie porn) - protocol is designed that way and default client allows it".

DNS Records can contain arbitrary text records, but that has never been a problem. Interestingly, the same kinds of arguments are heard against using the TXT records for unofficial purposes, but the DNS system hasn't yet collapsed.

On this forum we regularly contemplate putting Bitcoin addresses into DNS TXT records. How ironic that there is resistance to putting DNS data into Bitcoin!

[galeru]

The white paper allows for individual servers to drop transactions, so long as they maintain the hashes in the Merkle Tree.  So eventually, once the transaction server software is more advanced, the DNS servers could delete all the non-DNS server transactions, which would reduce it's storage requirements, and all the currency people can delete extraneous DNS transactions.

It is a tree, so it would be best if all transactions of each type were grouped so that you could delete one node, and reduce the Merkle Tree as much as possible.  Otherwise, all other transactions do is increase the number of transactions.

Also, as far as adding new data into transactions, maybe the best way to go about it is to introduce the data to the actual blockchain only when we also have the granular controls on mining and what people want included when they mine, and for what fees.  I think having a well thought out fee data distribution is going to end up crucial to bitcoin, so that way when bitcoin users go to make transactions, they can determine the likelihood of their data getting into a block.

Until we have this more effectively thought out, all the non-bitcoin stuff like BitDNS should go into the testchain.

[sturle]

DNS Records can contain arbitrary text records, but that has never been a problem. Interestingly, the same kinds of arguments are heard against using the TXT records for unofficial purposes, but the DNS system hasn't yet collapsed.

On this forum we regularly contemplate putting Bitcoin addresses into DNS TXT records. How ironic that there is resistance to putting DNS data into Bitcoin!

DNS doesn't push data on everybody.  You have to ask specifically for the TXT record from the server serving the domain.  Most requests are for A records, which are as as small as possible.

DNS can also be abused to send arbitrary data.  I'm a happy user of iodine myself to tunnel IP over DNS (encrypted) when I want to use some wifi hotspot for free.  But the traffic only go between me, the hotspot DNS server and my own DNS server.  I don't push all my encrypted internet traffic to every DNS user in the world.  I'm sure DNS would have been redesigned long ago if this was even possible.

[ribuck]

... I don't push all my encrypted internet traffic to every DNS user in the world ...

Bitcoin's distributed nature is its strength, not its weakness.

As bitcoin grows, there will be generators who operate large server farms that have no trouble with the network and storage requirements. And there will also be people who use Bitcoin through various cut-down solutions.

[jgarzik]

When a large amount of users are non-currency data users, currency users will face ... decreased ability to send free transactions.

There would be no incentive for a miner to process free domain name registration transactions.

Actually, the miner's incentive -- for currency or data transactions -- is in seeing free transaction space disappear so that transactions cost money.  In a system where non-currency data transactions are encouraged, which clearly raises traffic levels (over a currency-only chain), collectively costing everybody more money.

Broadening the use of the Bitcoin chain strengthens it. If 55% of currency users generate maliciously, they can corrupt the chain. But if there are also domain name registrars generating, you would have to corrupt 55% of them too, and different interest groups aren't corruptible in the same way.

Yes, it strengthens the chain -- but if the bitcoin chain is processing (say) the majority of .p2p DNS records, currency users have to fight for space, paying higher fees to do so.  Makes miners happy, and currency users unhappy.

[da2ce7]

Yes, it strengthens the chain -- but if the bitcoin chain is processing (say) the majority of .p2p DNS records, currency users have to fight for space, paying higher fees to do so.  Makes miners happy, and currency users unhappy.

This has already been covered, if the block is already full of profitable data (all with reasonable transaction fees), then there is a _strong_ economic incentive for a majority of the generators to increase the block size.  Thus allowing more transactions and other data into the chain, allowing them to collect more fees.

The entire block chain system, when paid for by transaction fees, is self balancing.

[da2ce7]

New transaction templates can be added as needed.  Within a few days, there will be plenty of GPU power that accepts and works on it.  Network support will be thorough long before there'll be enough clients who understand how to receive and interpret the new transaction.

I agree with the whitelisting, this allows the generators to be more discerning in what they accept or reject.  That said, as soon as the template for a good BitDNS implementation is released, I'll be sure to add it to my generators whitelist.

[abstraction]

If I make a flaw in reasoning, please tell me where I went wrong.

It seems to me like the trend for data and data processing will be cloud based. Currently, the clouds out there are proprietary. Is it not unreasonable to expect that one decentralized cloud will emerge in the long run? And if so, can't the data and the instructions about what to do with the data just be stored in the cloud? So the only extra data needed in the block would be an address to the instruction set already stored in the cloud, and the receiver just accesses the instructions from the address. I don't have a strong understanding about encryption, though. Will (or can) the instruction address in the block data be encrypted so only the sender and receiver know what it is, or have the right credentials to access the instruction set in the cloud?

[jgarzik]

Yes, it strengthens the chain -- but if the bitcoin chain is processing (say) the majority of .p2p DNS records, currency users have to fight for space, paying higher fees to do so.  Makes miners happy, and currency users unhappy.

This has already been covered, if the block is already full of profitable data (all with reasonable transaction fees), then there is a _strong_ economic incentive for a majority of the generators to increase the block size.  Thus allowing more transactions and other data into the chain, allowing them to collect more fees.

Sure, the miners collect more fees.  Sure, the block limit will increase.  As the block chain gets stronger and provides more valuable service, it gets more expensive for each user to use that service.  End result, currency users pay more as more non-currency data transits the block chain.

[da2ce7]

Sure, the miners collect more fees.  Sure, the block limit will increase.  As the block chain gets stronger and provides more valuable service, it gets more expensive for each user to use that service.  End result, currency users pay more as more non-currency data transits the block chain.

No, economically speaking, when something is produced in larger quantities the cost per unit goes down.  This is because any overhead for the production in relative terms has less effect on the cost per unit.  I see no reason why a larger block would be any different.

A larger block allows the generators to make more profit at a lower price per data unit charged. This encourages more people to use the service, thus increasing the incentive to generate.  It is a win-win situation.

[jgarzik]

Sure, the miners collect more fees.  Sure, the block limit will increase.  As the block chain gets stronger and provides more valuable service, it gets more expensive for each user to use that service.  End result, currency users pay more as more non-currency data transits the block chain.

No, economically speaking, when something is produced in larger quantities the cost per unit goes down.  This is because any overhead for the production in relative terms has less effect on the cost per unit.  I see no reason why a larger block would be any different.

In some possible future where transaction fees are calculated differently from today, and block size limits are different from what they are today, and a bunch of other conditions are different from the network rules and source code we have today, we'll see how it all shakes out.

[sturle]

... I don't push all my encrypted internet traffic to every DNS user in the world ...

Bitcoin's distributed nature is its strength, not its weakness.

As bitcoin grows, there will be generators who operate large server farms that have no trouble with the network and storage requirements. And there will also be people who use Bitcoin through various cut-down solutions.

This argument contradicts itself.  If you want storage on large server farms, then buy centralized storage on large server farms.  Don't try to push it upon Bitcoin, which strength is it's distributed nature.  Let it be distributed.  Bitcoin transactions will be very expensive in the future if your centralized large server farm idea wins.  Spare capacity on home computers is free.  Large server farms are not.  It is in our interest that it would still be possible to run Bitcoin on normal home computers in the future as well.

[ribuck]

It is in our interest that it would still be possible to run Bitcoin on normal home computers in the future as well.

It's likely that the continuing increases in storage capacity and drop in price per gigabyte will mean that it gets easier, not harder, to run Bitcoin on normal home computers. There is also the potential for block chain compaction which will reduce the storage requirements for a fully-functional home computer Bitcoin.

[sturle]

It is in our interest that it would still be possible to run Bitcoin on normal home computers in the future as well.

It's likely that the continuing increases in storage capacity and drop in price per gigabyte will mean that it gets easier, not harder, to run Bitcoin on normal home computers.

Great.  Let's wait for that to happen.  And let's ignore limited devices like smartphones, tablets, etc.  But please keep spam away from the blockchain until unlimited broadband is commonplace everywhere.

There is also the potential for block chain compaction which will reduce the storage requirements for a fully-functional home computer Bitcoin.

And there goes your storage.  *poff*  I wonder where you want to go with this.  First introduce junk in blocks to make Bitcoins to heavy to use for other than large serverfarms, and then get rid of it.

[ribuck]

... introduce junk in blocks ...

If it's useful to the sender, the recipient, and the miner, then it's not junk.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

... introduce junk in blocks ...

If it's useful to the sender, the recipient, and the miner, then it's not junk.

Bitcoin is supposed to be currency by definition. Anything in it that is not directly currency-related can be classified as "junk".
Perhaps separate protocols can be created for sending additional information based on private/public keys that already exist in bitcoin.

[davout]

... introduce junk in blocks ...

If it's useful to the sender, the recipient, and the miner, then it's not junk.

Bitcoin is supposed to be currency by definition. Anything in it that is not directly currency-related can be classified as "junk".
Perhaps separate protocols can be created for sending additional information based on private/public keys that already exist in bitcoin.

Bitcoin is supposed to be what users say its supposed to be.