Bitcoin Forum
December 09, 2016, 10:03:38 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: 2009 DARPA Network Challenge (finding red balloons)  (Read 1333 times)
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
November 10, 2011, 10:48:18 AM
 #1

from article:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1958.0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1958.msg612898#msg612898

Quote
As the protocol is currently defined and implemented, it does not provide an incentive for
nodes to broadcast transactions they are aware of. In fact, it provides a strong incentive not to do
so.

This sounds like total BS. Bitcoin rewards and transaction fees are pretty good incentive to broadcast your transactions if you wanna get paid.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
1481277818
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481277818

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481277818
Reply with quote  #2

1481277818
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481277818
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481277818

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481277818
Reply with quote  #2

1481277818
Report to moderator
wareen
Millionaire
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742

bitcoin-austria.at


View Profile
November 10, 2011, 11:18:33 AM
 #2


I think that's the post you wanted to link to:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1958.msg612898#msg612898

Only having skimmed their paper so far, but what they are getting at is that mining nodes might want to prohibit transaction with fees attached from spreading to other mining nodes. If a miner does not broadcast such a transaction to the network, he reduces the chance of other miners including these transactions into their blocks, thereby increasing his own expected reward over time.

Looking at how the network is actually structured today, this is a mere theoretical problem. The Bitcoin client goes to some lengths to ensure it is well connected to the network. As long as a miner does not somehow manage to encircle a client (controlling all nodes it is connected to), a miner does not really have a chance to prevent a transaction from spreading to the whole network.

Such an attack - however unlikely - should probably not be dismissed completely and I still have to read the whole paper to look at their proposed solution.

In my opinion, such a problem should be dealt with from the side of the sender of a transaction (who obviously has the greatest incentive for his transaction to be known by all miners). As soon as this issue would really start to become a problem, a client could simply spend more effort to make sure his transaction has spread.
finway
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714


View Profile
November 10, 2011, 12:00:57 PM
 #3

Gavin have talked about the incentive of relaying transactions, maybe someone have the solutions?
The number of nodes is declining steadily.

and what does the headline mean ?

cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
November 10, 2011, 12:26:03 PM
 #4


and what does the headline mean ?

That's a reference to the paper that posed the question. It's an analogy to the balloon experiment.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
November 15, 2011, 11:59:40 PM
 #5

I have a feeling these issues are going to be engineered out without any major hiccups to the Bitcoin network.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!