BadBitcoin (James Sutton)
Donator
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 452
Merit: 252
|
|
July 10, 2013, 01:54:59 PM |
|
we were going to run into this problem sooner or later, script allows for data to be stored in the blockchain, however since there is currently no incentive to hold the blockchain (fees being paid to hold it), eventually we'll run into serious storage problems enhanced by using the blockchain for storage, my companies design is looking at that seriously and we're currently trying to figure out a method that will keep bloat down to a minimum while maintaining a DDOS proof account ledger.
|
|
|
|
jl2012
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1792
Merit: 1111
|
|
July 10, 2013, 01:56:26 PM |
|
When signing with ECDSA you need to include a random number, which makes the signature different.
Okay - so random number rather than timestamp - the point is you *can* embed information then (and if random number then easier probably as perhaps if it was a timestamp it might be checked for range). Of course I assume it is not that big so not much information can be sent with such an approach (yes - too lazy to check the exact details as I don't think it matters very much - if the wish is to send messages then Bitmessage would be a much better option). No, the random number is a secret. You can't use it to store information. Revealing the random number will also reveal the private key. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptic_Curve_DSA#Signature_generation_algorithm
|
Donation address: 374iXxS4BuqFHsEwwxUuH3nvJ69Y7Hqur3 (Bitcoin ONLY) LRDGENPLYrcTRssGoZrsCT1hngaH3BVkM4 (LTC) PGP: D3CC 1772 8600 5BB8 FF67 3294 C524 2A1A B393 6517
|
|
|
CIYAM
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1890
Merit: 1086
Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer
|
|
July 10, 2013, 02:04:37 PM |
|
Huh - exactly how do you embed a "secret" number when ECDSA just does signing (it does not do encryption)?
|
|
|
|
BadBitcoin (James Sutton)
Donator
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 452
Merit: 252
|
|
July 10, 2013, 02:06:01 PM |
|
When signing with ECDSA you need to include a random number, which makes the signature different.
Okay - so random number rather than timestamp - the point is you *can* embed information then (and if random number then easier probably as perhaps if it was a timestamp it might be checked for range). Of course I assume it is not that big so not much information can be sent with such an approach (yes - too lazy to check the exact details as I don't think it matters very much - if the wish is to send messages then Bitmessage would be a much better option). the size allotted to script section in bytes has a maximum of 10kb ( https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script, scroll down to messages), so in theory you can store a significant amount of text per transaction, that's one thing that satoshi didn't envision and could cause problems if everyone starts using script to store database info, the blockchain bloat will increase in pace.
|
|
|
|
bozak
|
|
July 10, 2013, 02:09:36 PM |
|
Why are they using a large amount of coins for this purpose? Couldn't they just transfer 1 coin back and forth and acheive the same result?
|
|
|
|
CIYAM
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1890
Merit: 1086
Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer
|
|
July 10, 2013, 02:14:04 PM |
|
Why are they using a large amount of coins for this purpose? Couldn't they just transfer 1 coin back and forth and acheive the same result?
A good question - does it have something to do with the minimum tx fee algo or maybe the spammer is just "showing off" how much BTC they have?
|
|
|
|
🏰 TradeFortress 🏰
Bitcoin Veteran
VIP
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1316
Merit: 1043
👻
|
|
July 10, 2013, 02:55:29 PM |
|
Why are they using a large amount of coins for this purpose? Couldn't they just transfer 1 coin back and forth and acheive the same result?
A good question - does it have something to do with the minimum tx fee algo or maybe the spammer is just "showing off" how much BTC they have? The free TX policy has a coin days destroyed. For example, sending 100 BTC around would allow you to get free TX 100x faster than sending 1 BTC around.
|
|
|
|
KeyserSoze
|
|
July 10, 2013, 02:56:49 PM |
|
Perhaps someone plans to offer a BTC investment vehicle to potential non-technical investors and wants to provide them other "good data" beyond just exchange pricing. That entity could simply point to the sheer number of bitcoins transferred through the network as an "indicator" of its increased usage, knowing the average person wouldn't investigate the blockchain itself for something like this.
|
I used to day trade Bitcoin successfully. Then I took an arrow to the knee.
|
|
|
CIYAM
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1890
Merit: 1086
Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer
|
|
July 10, 2013, 02:58:58 PM |
|
The free TX policy has a coin days destroyed. For example, sending 100 BTC around would allow you to get free TX 100x faster than sending 1 BTC around.
Aha - I thought something like that might be the reason - so does the figure of 300 BTC have any "magical property" in regards that it seemingly can get into every new block (despite the UTXO being no older than the last block)? If they used 100 BTC instead would that not work just as well?
|
|
|
|
kjj
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1026
|
|
July 10, 2013, 03:05:19 PM |
|
Huh - exactly how do you embed a "secret" number when ECDSA just does signing (it does not do encryption)? EC math is magic. You don't really embed the secret number, you provide the product of the random number * G. You may recognize that as the same operation that produces your public keys from your private keys.
|
17Np17BSrpnHCZ2pgtiMNnhjnsWJ2TMqq8 I routinely ignore posters with paid advertising in their sigs. You should too.
|
|
|
CIYAM
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1890
Merit: 1086
Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer
|
|
July 10, 2013, 03:10:23 PM |
|
EC math is magic. You don't really embed the secret number, you provide the product of the random number * G. You may recognize that as the same operation that produces your public keys from your private keys. Oh - well I must admit that to me it is a bit magic - but from what you're saying then the random number being not actually embedded at all would make it pretty useless for storing information then. In that case we can rule out the "storing information" hypothesis - any other ideas why this spamming is being done (to prove some point perhaps)?
|
|
|
|
SgtSpike
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1005
|
|
July 10, 2013, 03:15:15 PM |
|
Curious as to why they would use 300 BTC for an experiment when 5 would do the trick just the same...
Because it wouldn't do the trick just the same. If they are sending transactions just a few blocks apart, then 5 BTC wouldn't be able to be sent without a fee. Remember that a fee is required whenever Bitcoin * Days is less than 1. 30 minutes * 300 BTC = 6.25 Bitcoin Days, but 30 minutes * 5 BTC = 0.104 Bitcoin Days.
|
|
|
|
dirtscience
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
|
|
July 10, 2013, 03:18:11 PM |
|
Its not spamming if they are paying fees
|
|
|
|
CIYAM
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1890
Merit: 1086
Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer
|
|
July 10, 2013, 03:19:45 PM |
|
Because it wouldn't do the trick just the same. If they are sending transactions just a few blocks apart, then 5 BTC wouldn't be able to be sent without a fee. Remember that a fee is required whenever Bitcoin * Days is less than 1. 30 minutes * 300 BTC = 6.25 Bitcoin Days, but 30 minutes * 5 BTC = 0.104 Bitcoin Days.
So would 50 BTC be able to be used to do the same thing then? Its not spamming if they are paying fees No fees are being paid (check the links to blockchain,info).
|
|
|
|
dirtscience
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
|
|
July 10, 2013, 03:22:31 PM |
|
ITS NOT SPAMMING, totally a normal thing to do.
|
|
|
|
CIYAM
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1890
Merit: 1086
Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer
|
|
July 10, 2013, 03:24:23 PM |
|
ITS NOT SPAMMING, totally a normal thing to do.
If everyone did this then the blockchain would end up 1000s of times bigger than it is - and how is it totally normal to send your BTC to one address and back to the original address every single block?
|
|
|
|
🏰 TradeFortress 🏰
Bitcoin Veteran
VIP
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1316
Merit: 1043
👻
|
|
July 10, 2013, 03:24:39 PM |
|
ITS NOT SPAMMING, totally a normal thing to do.
Please tell me you are trolling
|
|
|
|
CIYAM
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1890
Merit: 1086
Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer
|
|
July 10, 2013, 03:25:50 PM |
|
Please tell me you are trolling I am guessing so (shouldn't have bothered replying should I).
|
|
|
|
nottm28
|
|
July 10, 2013, 03:35:44 PM |
|
Curious as to why they would use 300 BTC for an experiment when 5 would do the trick just the same...
Because it wouldn't do the trick just the same. If they are sending transactions just a few blocks apart, then 5 BTC wouldn't be able to be sent without a fee. Remember that a fee is required whenever Bitcoin * Days is less than 1. 30 minutes * 300 BTC = 6.25 Bitcoin Days, but 30 minutes * 5 BTC = 0.104 Bitcoin Days. Ah that makes sense as to why 300 BTC then - nicely pointed out [EDIT] but yeah - why not 50 then?
|
donations not accepted
|
|
|
SgtSpike
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1005
|
|
July 10, 2013, 04:09:19 PM |
|
Curious as to why they would use 300 BTC for an experiment when 5 would do the trick just the same...
Because it wouldn't do the trick just the same. If they are sending transactions just a few blocks apart, then 5 BTC wouldn't be able to be sent without a fee. Remember that a fee is required whenever Bitcoin * Days is less than 1. 30 minutes * 300 BTC = 6.25 Bitcoin Days, but 30 minutes * 5 BTC = 0.104 Bitcoin Days. Ah that makes sense as to why 300 BTC then - nicely pointed out [EDIT] but yeah - why not 50 then? If they want to do it every 3 blocks, they might want to make sure the transactions won't have trouble getting through in case 3 blocks are mined rather quickly after each other. Or, they just had 300 BTC handy that they didn't want to split up. Or.... ??
|
|
|
|
|