[OLD] Eligius: ASIC, no registration, no fee CPPSRB BTC + 105% PPS NMC, 877 #

[piotr_n]

Are you guys basically saying that because of evorhees and his shitty gambling service all miners are getting 10% less income for some strange reason ?

Personally, I am not saying that this is the reason.
I'm only saying that from the data I got the number of orphaned blocks mined out by Eligius went up from ~1% in the past months to over 12% in June.
Why - it's not up to me to figure it out.

[1713920075]

1713920075

[1713920075]

1713920075

[1713920075]

1713920075

[bulanula]

Are you guys basically saying that because of evorhees and his shitty gambling service all miners are getting 10% less income for some strange reason ?

Personally, I am not saying that this is the reason.
I'm not saying that from the data I got the number of orphaned blocks mined out by Eligius went up from ~1% in the past months to over 12% in June.
Why - it's not up to me to figure it out.

Yeah. After thinking about it, it seems that SatoshiDice actually proves Satoshi failed with his ideas as BTC cannot possibly scale.

But the mining income dropping is not fun

[piotr_n]

Yeah. After thinking about it, it seems that SatoshiDice actually proves Satoshi failed with his ideas as BTC cannot possibly scale.

Oh, I wouldn't quite agree with this statement.
It does still work - just causing an incredible increase of the number of orphaned blocks.
Sort of a reward deprecation from the 50 BTC to.. something less, which was not planned in the initial design

[bulanula]

Yeah. After thinking about it, it seems that SatoshiDice actually proves Satoshi failed with his ideas as BTC cannot possibly scale.

Oh, I wouldn't quite agree with this statement.
It does still work - just causing an incredible increase of the number of orphaned blocks.
Sort of a reward deprecation from the 50 BTC to.. something less, which was not planned in the initial design

Yeah. I still think this is a problem. Are the developers acknowledging this or not ?

This is causing more orphans and more stales for everyone mining

[coinft]

Yeah. After thinking about it, it seems that SatoshiDice actually proves Satoshi failed with his ideas as BTC cannot possibly scale.

Oh, I wouldn't quite agree with this statement.
It does still work - just causing an incredible increase of the number of orphaned blocks.
Sort of a reward deprecation from the 50 BTC to.. something less, which was not planned in the initial design

My guess is this is not true. As many valid blocks get mined as planned. We get orphans in addition, because we are not informed about some valid blocks fast enough. Without the orphans less hashing power would be wasted, the difficulty would be higher, and exactly the same amount of blocks would be mined in total.

This assumes all pools and miners have the same problem.

[muyuu]

Bad luck alone cannot explain the results of late. It's statistically absurd, reminds me of the Dilbert comic about the random number generator always saying 7,7,7,7,7...

[jl2012]

Yeah. After thinking about it, it seems that SatoshiDice actually proves Satoshi failed with his ideas as BTC cannot possibly scale.

Oh, I wouldn't quite agree with this statement.
It does still work - just causing an incredible increase of the number of orphaned blocks.
Sort of a reward deprecation from the 50 BTC to.. something less, which was not planned in the initial design

Yeah. I still think this is a problem. Are the developers acknowledging this or not ?

This is causing more orphans and more stales for everyone mining

Unless the tx fee is so high which could compensate the orphans, miner will start to reject tx like what Eligius doing. Eligius is simply putting the burden on other miners and increase their orphan rate.

Although I agree SD is abusing the network, a successful BTC network should be able to handle 1000x of current volume. If SD is a stress test, the network is failed. It means the network cannot grow further.

Without changing the current infrastructure, there are 3 options: 1. Miners will allow only a limited number of tx in a block, but this may leave some tx never confirmed and BTC is dead; 2. Increase the tx fee by 10x or even 100x; 3. A revised tx fee formula to punish people using coins with <3 confirmation.

All these solutions, however, would be short-term. If more people use BTC (which most of us want to see), the same problem will emerge again. If this could not be solved, this will be a major bottleneck of the whole system.

[eleuthria]

Unless the tx fee is so high which could compensate the orphans, miner will start to reject tx like what Eligius doing. Eligius is simply putting the burden on other miners and increase their orphan rate.

Although I agree SD is abusing the network, a successful BTC network should be able to handle 1000x of current volume. If SD is a stress test, the network is failed. It means the network cannot grow further.

Without changing the current infrastructure, there are 3 options: 1. Miners will allow only a limited number of tx in a block, but this may leave some tx never confirmed and BTC is dead; 2. Increase the tx fee by 10x or even 100x; 3. A revised tx fee formula to punish people using coins with <3 confirmation.

All these solutions, however, would be short-term. If more people use BTC (which most of us want to see), the same problem will emerge again. If this could not be solved, this will be a major bottleneck of the whole system.

Actually, the TX fee used to be much higher (0.01 per KB vs 0.0005).  It was reduced to 1/20020th it's original size after last summer's bubble.  At this point, txfees are almost meaningless because of that decision.  To process credit cards, you're looking at percentage fees, in addition to $0.05 to $0.30 per transaction, depending on volume and your system's ability to run the transactions in batches and the volume of transactions you process daily.  Right now, the txfees are pointless.  They don't even amount to a penny per TX in most cases.  That's why I actually agree with what Luke has done.

It is not SD's fault, they are following the rules that were changed because the developers were being pressured by the community last summer when TX fees were "becoming too big" because the price was $20-30 for a few weeks.  However, even at the peak value and 0.01 per KB, they were almost always cheaper than what would be charged by any credit card/payment processor.

If the fees were still 0.01, this wouldn't be a problem.  The fees would be adding enough to each block to make up for the higher risk of orphans.  Of course, it would also probably kill SatoshiDice because the fees would be a much larger portion of the bets.  Not that Bitcoin should be kept in this state for SatoshiDice.  I don't ever recall Bitcoin being marketed as a micropayment system.

And even if fees were bumped back up to 0.01, this doesn't mean everybody is suddenly paying high fees.  The network is designed to give priority to large transfers of highly confirmed coins.  The only people that would feel the change are those sending coins just after receiving them, or sending extremely small amounts of coins [or paying with a "bag of pennies" in change].

[Clipse]

Satoshi dice have 50-100BTC per flip bets, sure as hell they could manage fine with 0.01 BTC fees

[eleuthria]

Satoshi dice have 50-100BTC per flip bets, sure as hell they could manage fine with 0.01 BTC fees

The max bet is only 5 BTC on SD right now (has been for a while).  And if you look at their stats, the vast majority of bets are under 0.10 BTC.  Bumping the fee to 0.01 would likely kill off most of SD's business (which right now is probably mostly made up of martingale bots).

Still, I'm starting to think Deepbit's decision to stick to the old fee structure may have been a good one.

[Clipse]

Well looking at the bigwins bets, at some point they allowed much higher bets and I dont se why they wont allow that again considering ppl enjoy throwing money away. Here is a list of the bigwin big bets.

Details   2012-06-03 11:00:18   lessthan 6000   c6d4eec1   4ca2f368   16E6Lbm   CONFIRMED   100.00000000   WIN   1070.92083333   3213
Details   2012-06-02 20:01:08   lessthan 16000   ef9792c0   58971564   1H8yth1   CONFIRMED   80.00000000   WIN   321.52590000   13091
Details   2012-06-03 05:55:05   lessthan 24000   ca0a7568   7fac902f   1Dz3WA7   CONFIRMED   100.00000000   WIN   268.10483333   18133
Details   2012-05-23 01:01:53   lessthan 24000   24b7d746   93d9e744   1FK6aLb   CONFIRMED   100.00000000   WIN   268.10483333   18158
Details   2012-06-01 00:12:53   lessthan 24000   89c5c550   06764306   1Pf5VTb   CONFIRMED   76.80000000   WIN   205.90439600   1641
Details   2012-05-23 20:49:21   lessthan 12000   94fda443   e8a51611   1M5XaBu   CONFIRMED   26.00000000   WIN   139.28427333   10755
Details   2012-05-20 06:38:02   lessthan 32000   1b0c6565   b1046f77   1FECe7o   CONFIRMED   107.75060000   WIN   216.79801722   4266
Details   2012-05-04 17:16:52   lessthan 24000   4968982c   907ac27f   17A7Zq9   CONFIRMED   61.00000000   WIN   165.20833333   979
Details   2012-05-07 13:52:07   lessthan 24000   8f12d467   2563d180   1APj1tg   CONFIRMED   61.00000000   WIN   165.20833333   3259
Details   2012-05-17 01:24:08   lessthan 32000   92d6a8c1   a7198565   18wQDCk   CONFIRMED   100.35000000   WIN   203.46163200   26206

[jl2012]

Unless the tx fee is so high which could compensate the orphans, miner will start to reject tx like what Eligius doing. Eligius is simply putting the burden on other miners and increase their orphan rate.

Although I agree SD is abusing the network, a successful BTC network should be able to handle 1000x of current volume. If SD is a stress test, the network is failed. It means the network cannot grow further.

Without changing the current infrastructure, there are 3 options: 1. Miners will allow only a limited number of tx in a block, but this may leave some tx never confirmed and BTC is dead; 2. Increase the tx fee by 10x or even 100x; 3. A revised tx fee formula to punish people using coins with <3 confirmation.

All these solutions, however, would be short-term. If more people use BTC (which most of us want to see), the same problem will emerge again. If this could not be solved, this will be a major bottleneck of the whole system.

Actually, the TX fee used to be much higher (0.01 per KB vs 0.0005).  It was reduced to 1/200th it's original size after last summer's bubble.  At this point, txfees are almost meaningless because of that decision.  To process credit cards, you're looking at percentage fees, in addition to $0.05 to $0.30 per transaction, depending on volume and your system's ability to run the transactions in batches and the volume of transactions you process daily.  Right now, the txfees are pointless.  They don't even amount to a penny per TX in most cases.  That's why I actually agree with what Luke has done.

It is not SD's fault, they are following the rules that were changed because the developers were being pressured by the community last summer when TX fees were "becoming too big" because the price was $20-30 for a few weeks.  However, even at the peak value and 0.01 per KB, they were almost always cheaper than what would be charged by any credit card/payment processor.

If the fees were still 0.01, this wouldn't be a problem.  The fees would be adding enough to each block to make up for the higher risk of orphans.  Of course, it would also probably kill SatoshiDice because the fees would be a much larger portion of the bets.  Not that Bitcoin should be kept in this state for SatoshiDice.  I don't ever recall Bitcoin being marketed as a micropayment system.

And even if fees were bumped back up to 0.01, this doesn't mean everybody is suddenly paying high fees.  The network is designed to give priority to large transfers of highly confirmed coins.  The only people that would feel the change are those sending coins just after receiving them, or sending extremely small amounts of coins [or paying with a "bag of pennies" in change].

It's only 1/20th, not 1/200th


Transparency of the BTC tx fee system is actually quite low. Although the client will provide a "standard" rate, you will never know if it will be accepted or not. I think the major pools should publish their fee schedule/rules. Fee should be decided by the market, not the devs.

BTC may not be marketed as a micropayment system, but it has a good potential to be one. Tx fee of 0.01BTC may work a this moment. Pushing the tx fee to 0.3USD (0.01*30USD at the peak) will just kill any sub-dollar tx, or force them out of the blockchain (what SD suggested to do). (OK, may be I should start a BTC micropayment service)

Is it possible to improve the protocol, so we could tolerate SD-type tx while keeping the fee low?

[organofcorti]

Try looking through http://eligius.st/~luke-jr/raw/7/blocks/

If all the mined blocks are there - then you must be right like hell.
http://pastebin.com/mb14R9nR

Code:

0% of orphaned blocks in January
1.0% in February
1.4% in March
0% in April
2.3% in May (though first one on the 13th)
12.7% in June

How did you get the orphans from that link? I couldn't see anything in the directory indicating whther or not the block orphaned. Well done though!

[piotr_n]

How did you get the orphans from that link? I couldn't see anything in the directory indicating whther or not the block orphaned. Well done though!

First I tried to use blockchain.info and parse the html looking for a green "Main chain"... but the server blocked my ip after the fist few hundreds of rows, so it didnt get me far

So I had to fetch the actual block-chain from my client, using: "getblocks", parse "inv", repeat.. and then compare the mined blocks list, against the fetched chain.

In other words, the directory gives a list like this:

Code:

0000000000000a0bb1e12a5bd988c6b1c887afacd5a22050e54f03b9f97254a7	15-Mar-2012 02:58	120K	 
0000000000000a04a64e7a78b31c0a15f155c6530dd3ccbc8d24177b8e0082a9	09-Feb-2012 22:42	 89K	 
0000000000000a1f3b8b9c7b05ad381704e061adc293a6b9c01f847530ed8b00	08-May-2012 08:46	180K	 
0000000000000a2a686bd26e12427f808128ec0c27ca8c3405cd48221c023693	01-Mar-2012 23:19	108K	 
0000000000000a2e219fddcad303da476afc432ec6e478f2040bbf6d0792803c	05-Apr-2012 03:56	142K	 
0000000000000a3b42c84ee50e137485641abcb6d7eb33964dbbabc744ad21b7	09-Mar-2012 05:56	114K	 
...

... and then you have the actual chain:

Code:

000000000000066c6e629b2fb49c7fcc52b82fe9833f328e0c3943856facf231 160000
00000000000008754857069b7a1df3acd1643a7ffe1623eceebcb7346ffd6a63 160001
0000000000000320ae4ff160201e80592869b4e09844764455105cbe19fbb9d2 160002
...
000000000000002f88943806d0025389e540a356077f5f4667a725bfc0a663c2 185006
00000000000009f70f52e54bb6939365c8d33324fa1aa80e7c1cae17f2324a1f 185007
000000000000068b678282b2ec7d5e3f17add5ce1cc3dcf71d6f48ffbb9bc896 185008

... and whatever was in the first list, but not in the second, I assumed orphaned.

[organofcorti]

Clever. Nice work 

[John (John K.)]

Just noticed my spare balance of ~0.21 is still here despite the fact that I've never mined to it for almost two months. How long do the 'extra credit' mode last? 

[Luke-Jr]

Just noticed my spare balance of ~0.21 is still here despite the fact that I've never mined to it for almost two months. How long do the 'extra credit' mode last? 

Until we get back to the positive side of luck. If you stop mining, it's possible you might get to zero sooner, though.

[John (John K.)]

Just noticed my spare balance of ~0.21 is still here despite the fact that I've never mined to it for almost two months. How long do the 'extra credit' mode last? 

Until we get back to the positive side of luck. If you stop mining, it's possible you might get to zero sooner, though.

My balance is at 1 satoshi for more then a week now. Is that counted as approximately zero?

[Luke-Jr]

Just noticed my spare balance of ~0.21 is still here despite the fact that I've never mined to it for almost two months. How long do the 'extra credit' mode last? 

Until we get back to the positive side of luck. If you stop mining, it's possible you might get to zero sooner, though.

My balance is at 1 satoshi for more then a week now. Is that counted as approximately zero?

How did that happen? Link?

[John (John K.)]

http://eligius.st/~artefact2/7/18c8oXmyvfAFjeR575y5XACJhtrVf9yfjR