Flood attack 0.00000001 BC

[jeannemadrigal2]

Thanks elux this thread is great.  You can also go look at Gavins recent posts and I think you can see that he is not an ego maniac like some suggested, but actually a pretty levelheaded guy.

[1714051722]

1714051722

[funtotry]

I always get these transactions. Usually people attach message them to advertise. Its very cheap advertisement definitely, satoshi is a fraction of a cent, however they are really annoying and never confirm, messing up my wallet.

[m3]

i feel like we should listen to satoshi after all he is the founder.

[SteamGamesBTC.com]

I agree with @satoshi. The blockchain should remain as low in size as possible in my opinion. Currently it's ~50 GB and I had to turn off several full nodes I'm running, because some of my VPS are unable to handle the disc space. I guess there are much more people like me who runs full nodes on low-end servers.

[unamis76]

I agree with @satoshi. The blockchain should remain as low in size as possible in my opinion. Currently it's ~50 GB and I had to turn off several full nodes I'm running, because some of my VPS are unable to handle the disc space. I guess there are much more people like me who runs full nodes on low-end servers.

Space and bandwidth eventually get cheaper and VPS prices go with that... You can have a VPS capable of running a node for as low as 6$/month last time I checked... Doesn't seem too bad Satoshi also said we'll eventually stop worrying about how big it gets... I think we're starting to reach that point (unless Bitcoin acceptance goes through the rough from day to night!)

[maokoto]

I agree with @satoshi. The blockchain should remain as low in size as possible in my opinion. Currently it's ~50 GB and I had to turn off several full nodes I'm running, because some of my VPS are unable to handle the disc space. I guess there are much more people like me who runs full nodes on low-end servers.

Agree too. Perhaps there should be a system of storing only newer transactions and only some bigger nodes storing the full blockchain.

[Mickeyb]

I agree with @satoshi. The blockchain should remain as low in size as possible in my opinion. Currently it's ~50 GB and I had to turn off several full nodes I'm running, because some of my VPS are unable to handle the disc space. I guess there are much more people like me who runs full nodes on low-end servers.

Space and bandwidth eventually get cheaper and VPS prices go with that... You can have a VPS capable of running a node for as low as 6$/month last time I checked... Doesn't seem too bad Satoshi also said we'll eventually stop worrying about how big it gets... I think we're starting to reach that point (unless Bitcoin acceptance goes through the rough from day to night!)

Bandwidth does get cheaper but not for everyone and all of the countries. I know some countries where bandwidth is the same or even decreased in the last 10 years. Disk space yes, gets cheaper for everyone.

Where I live (France) bandwidth is following and even exceeding Moore's law but I repeat, this is not as common for everybody else.

Essentially this bandwidth problem is a backbone of the current block size increase problem.

[ranochigo]

I agree with @satoshi. The blockchain should remain as low in size as possible in my opinion. Currently it's ~50 GB and I had to turn off several full nodes I'm running, because some of my VPS are unable to handle the disc space. I guess there are much more people like me who runs full nodes on low-end servers.

Agree too. Perhaps there should be a system of storing only newer transactions and only some bigger nodes storing the full blockchain.

Block pruning is at the early development right now. Using it could potentially reduce the blockchain size but you can't use the wallet as of now. It is important to note that even with block pruning, you still need to download the full blockchain.

[8831288]

By the time everyone has Bitcoins, the fee will have been removed or adjusted.

I guess the fee will be higher rather than remove.

[unamis76]

I agree with @satoshi. The blockchain should remain as low in size as possible in my opinion. Currently it's ~50 GB and I had to turn off several full nodes I'm running, because some of my VPS are unable to handle the disc space. I guess there are much more people like me who runs full nodes on low-end servers.

Space and bandwidth eventually get cheaper and VPS prices go with that... You can have a VPS capable of running a node for as low as 6$/month last time I checked... Doesn't seem too bad Satoshi also said we'll eventually stop worrying about how big it gets... I think we're starting to reach that point (unless Bitcoin acceptance goes through the rough from day to night!)

Bandwidth does get cheaper but not for everyone and all of the countries. I know some countries where bandwidth is the same or even decreased in the last 10 years. Disk space yes, gets cheaper for everyone.

Where I live (France) bandwidth is following and even exceeding Moore's law but I repeat, this is not as common for everybody else.

Essentially this bandwidth problem is a backbone of the current block size increase problem.

Exactly, that's why I was referring to VPS's. Even if it's not feasible to create a home node, you can rent a VPS on a place where network costs are small and run a node for the same price or even cheaper than you would at home, with the same specs as the VPS.

France (and many other places in Europe) are good places to run nodes. people from other countries can rent VPS's here and go from there.

[Mickeyb]

I agree with @satoshi. The blockchain should remain as low in size as possible in my opinion. Currently it's ~50 GB and I had to turn off several full nodes I'm running, because some of my VPS are unable to handle the disc space. I guess there are much more people like me who runs full nodes on low-end servers.

Space and bandwidth eventually get cheaper and VPS prices go with that... You can have a VPS capable of running a node for as low as 6$/month last time I checked... Doesn't seem too bad Satoshi also said we'll eventually stop worrying about how big it gets... I think we're starting to reach that point (unless Bitcoin acceptance goes through the rough from day to night!)

Bandwidth does get cheaper but not for everyone and all of the countries. I know some countries where bandwidth is the same or even decreased in the last 10 years. Disk space yes, gets cheaper for everyone.

Where I live (France) bandwidth is following and even exceeding Moore's law but I repeat, this is not as common for everybody else.

Essentially this bandwidth problem is a backbone of the current block size increase problem.

Exactly, that's why I was referring to VPS's. Even if it's not feasible to create a home node, you can rent a VPS on a place where network costs are small and run a node for the same price or even cheaper than you would at home, with the same specs as the VPS.

France (and many other places in Europe) are good places to run nodes. people from other countries can rent VPS's here and go from there.

Yes you are right! Sorry, I misunderstood your post!

[vane91]

i think the solution would be to have a variable that checks the bitcoin price, it could use a web resource or you can set it manually.

That way all the time the minium tx amount for relay will be 0.01$ and the tx fee will be by default 0.01-0.1$ (it will be calculated dinamically)

Miners could still mine tx under that amount but by default all clients will just forgot tx that fall under this thresholds. (as they will never confirm)

[zimmah]

It would be nice to keep the blk*.dat files small as long as we can.

The eventual solution will be to not care how big it gets.

But for now, while it's still small, it's nice to keep it small so new users can get going faster.  When I eventually implement client-only mode, that won't matter much anymore.

There's more work to do on transaction fees.  In the event of a flood, you would still be able to jump the queue and get your transactions into the next block by paying a 0.01 transaction fee.  However, I haven't had time yet to add that option to the UI.

Scale or not, the test network will react in the same ways, but with much less wasted bandwidth and annoyance.

bumped and emphasis added.

Still relevant today.

Other quotes that are somewhat related:

The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale.  That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server.  The design supports letting users just be users.  The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be.  Those few nodes will be big server farms.  The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate.

Quote from: bytemaster on July 28, 2010, 08:59:42 PM
Besides, 10 minutes is too long to verify that payment is good.  It needs to be as fast as swiping a credit card is today.
See the snack machine thread, I outline how a payment processor could verify payments well enough, actually really well (much lower fraud rate than credit cards), in something like 10 seconds or less.  If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry.
http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=423.msg3819#msg3819

Forgot to add the good part about micropayments.  While I don't think Bitcoin is practical for smaller micropayments right now, it will eventually be as storage and bandwidth costs continue to fall.  If Bitcoin catches on on a big scale, it may already be the case by that time.  Another way they can become more practical is if I implement client-only mode and the number of network nodes consolidates into a smaller number of professional server farms.  Whatever size micropayments you need will eventually be practical.  I think in 5 or 10 years, the bandwidth and storage will seem trivial.

Note that when the 1MB limit was set, the average blocksize was like 2% of what it is now, they were still mining with laptops back then and they were apparently dealing with DOS attacks on the blockchain. A few months after the limit was put in place, satoshi still called bitcoin a "small beta project" and he intentionally wanted to keep it small (in userbase) because the network was not ready for widespread adoption yet.

[davis196]

hi, what would happen if someone sends millions of 0.00000001 BC to millions of address please ?

=> all of the networks peers must store all transactions ?
=> are each 0.00000001 owner/hash stocked in blocks on all peers?

i don't really understand how bitcoin handle fractions of bc

First,usually there is a transaction fee which higher than 0.000000001 btc.

Second,i don`t know why  would anyone give away btc for free.

I think it will be good most of the wallets to add an option to accept or deny incoming transactions.

[realdantreccia]

I do not see how it does that.  1 BTC will likely always be smaller than USD/EUR/etc, thus meaning that it can be used for micropayments.

This guy though... (necroed again - this is a great and overlooked threat with satoshi and Gavin both)

[NotATether]

I do not see how it does that.  1 BTC will likely always be smaller than USD/EUR/etc, thus meaning that it can be used for micropayments.

This guy though... (necroed again - this is a great and overlooked threat with satoshi and Gavin both)

There doesn't appear to be a 0.01BTC fee condition in the code anymore, because the main.h file that housed it has been completely removed and I haven't found the condition in any other include/source files.

[realdantreccia]

There doesn't appear to be a 0.01BTC fee condition in the code anymore, because the main.h file that housed it has been completely removed and I haven't found the condition in any other include/source files.

It's definitely gone. Some vodoo magic accounting. There's quite a few places thought where forks "burn" or "destroy" 0.01 units of their coin as well as some places where Bitcoin miners "threw away" their block rewards/fees. Just some magic accounting - I always sort of keep a running accounting book as I study tx. I think it's funny how we're in a similar spot today with "ETH" -- it's 0.01+ for small 10-30 USD/transactions so I don't even bother with it. Like I missed the BTC train, I go for precursors (older codebases than the Bitcoin Core code, or bets on special forks that are long "dormant" but have a good dev community). I feel like "ETH" isn't the only chain that is gonna merge with one of its forks ('Beacon Chain' merge for ETH 2.0). Just a hunch.