Witholding transactions
MoonShadow:
Quote from: asdf on March 28, 2011, 11:08:12 PM
What are these non-miner relays?
Basicly every other client that the owner doesn't have enough incentive to bother with making this kind of low-level code change in order to potentially nab a few extra bitcoins. Any regular client, whether they are generating or not. Any future 'lightweight' client that can't generate. And any future client modified as a clearinghouse service for commerce, which would have a vested interest in undermining such self-serving behavior.
asdf:
Quote from: creighto on March 29, 2011, 12:07:25 AM
Quote from: asdf on March 28, 2011, 11:08:12 PM
What are these non-miner relays?
Basicly every other client that the owner doesn't have enough incentive to bother with making this kind of low-level code change in order to potentially nab a few extra bitcoins. Any regular client, whether they are generating or not. Any future 'lightweight' client that can't generate. And any future client modified as a clearinghouse service for commerce, which would have a vested interest in undermining such self-serving behavior.
That's true now, but in the future I expect code that provides an easy interface to managing the withholding of transactions to be ubiquitous.
Also, it seems to me that in the future, any node that relays all transactions would almost certainly be generating. If you're going to invest in bandwidth and hardware to maintain a copy of the blockchain, you'd be crazy to not also generate.
Will there be any non-miner relays?
Sorry to belabor the point. I may be way off target here.
MoonShadow:
Quote from: asdf on March 29, 2011, 02:43:25 AM
Quote from: creighto on March 29, 2011, 12:07:25 AM
Quote from: asdf on March 28, 2011, 11:08:12 PM
What are these non-miner relays?
Basicly every other client that the owner doesn't have enough incentive to bother with making this kind of low-level code change in order to potentially nab a few extra bitcoins. Any regular client, whether they are generating or not. Any future 'lightweight' client that can't generate. And any future client modified as a clearinghouse service for commerce, which would have a vested interest in undermining such self-serving behavior.
That's true now, but in the future I expect code that provides an easy interface to managing the withholding of transactions to be ubiquitous.
Also, it seems to me that in the future, any node that relays all transactions would almost certainly be generating. If you're going to invest in bandwidth and hardware to maintain a copy of the blockchain, you'd be crazy to not also generate.
Will there be any non-miner relays?
Sorry to belabor the point. I may be way off target here.
I still think that there will be non-generating clients. I've been working on a project that would put a client on a Pirate Box (http://wiki.daviddarts.com/PirateBox) that would function in all respects just like any other piratebox, but have an Internet connection for the blockchain. The point of it all would be to update smartphones over wifi. The point being to test the possibility of smartphone clients like BitcoinJ in a production environment for the ability to do POS type transactions with the aid of a vendor provided wifi connection, without providing for a complete Internet connection. I've got a router for the purpose, but have yet to put a pirate box system upon it, much less figure out how to redirect wlan side bitcoin connections to the local client. In this case, generating is futile, but full handling of transactions are critical. IF Bitcoin takes off, and then makes the jump to brick&morter vendors, such clients would be everywhere; and very well might outnumber generating clients.
theymos:
It will never be too hard to just send the transaction to most generators. Right now you can send your transaction to three of the biggest generators and get >50% of the network's CPU working on your transaction. I don't think this will be necessary, though.
asdf:
I'm still not convinced.
If a client transmits a new transaction to a bunch of miners, isn't it in the interest of each of those miners to not forward that transaction to other nodes, keeping the fees for himself for when he finally solves a block? Yes, miners have an incentive to be "well-connected", but that's not gonna make their peers forward transactions.
What's worse: the bigger the txfee, the more incentive to not forward the transaction.
Can someone chime in on this please. I feel that none of these responses have adequately addressed the issue. Is there some market based mechanism which will counter this behavior?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page