Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

It really behooves everyone to read and carefully digest the principles in this thread:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3chtdp/the_blocksize_cap_is_basically_worthless_for/

[1714297080]

1714297080

[1714297080]

1714297080

[1714297080]

1714297080

[cypherdoc]

#Chinameltdown  The end of Chinese false economic prosperity (Austrian perspective)

#EconomicCrisisIsOver  US Mint Runs Out Of Silver On Same Day Price Of Silver Plunges To 2015 Lows


The 'spam issue' in Bitcoin will never be fixed (as you define it) because demand for space in the Mother of all Blockchains will always exceed supply.

Soon, wallets will support dynamic intelli-fees and fancy RBF whatnot.

In the mean time, pay 25 cents or a dollar for higher verification priority if you don't want your tx stuck.

If that's too much money for some broke cheapskates, fuck'em.  They aren't bringing "economic activity" (beyond subsidized freeloading) to Bitcoin in the first place.

@pierre_rochard

Those who would give up essential Decentralization, to purchase a little temporary Adoption, deserve neither Decentralization nor Adoption.

Quoting Rochard is the worst thing you could do besides flapping your own lips.

[Odalv]

look at this.  80K unconf tx's and 6.76TPS and yet gmax et al says there's no problem.  all that wasted computational work done by full nodes for blocks that will never clear those unconf tx's.  i told you long ago these guys will never even be able to recognize a problem even when it's staring them in the face and even after it's beat them over the head:

So the fix is to happily write these 80k spam transactions into the permanent ledger that we (full nodes) have to keep a copy of forever?

Yes, initially.

After some volatility and after the spammers figure out they can't jack the mempool anymore the attacks should stop.

someone did a calculation:

For example, with 100mb blocks, forcing average transaction fees up to only $0.06 over the course of a year would genuinely cost an attacker over $1billion.

Did he calculate how much will cost memory to keep this spam ?

Your missing the point that the spammer wouldn't even try it at that cost.

If your calculation is right then using 1 mb block he has to pay $10 million per year.  (and $100M if we rise fee to $0.6)

No, the damage to the user base in that scenario will kill user growth which is the one thing that will cause value to square over time.

There is no computer what can process 10 billion transactions per day. You must build hierarchical structure on top of bitcoin protocol if you want user growth.

[Peter R]

look at this.  80K unconf tx's and 6.76TPS and yet gmax et al says there's no problem.  all that wasted computational work done by full nodes for blocks that will never clear those unconf tx's.  i told you long ago these guys will never even be able to recognize a problem even when it's staring them in the face and even after it's beat them over the head:

So the fix is to happily write these 80k spam transactions into the permanent ledger that we (full nodes) have to keep a copy of forever?

This is an order-of-magnitude estimate, but I think it's pretty convincing that it's both more expensive for the spammer and less expensive for a node/miner to store the spam than to reject it.  When the spam is rejected, it can be "re-spammed" without the attacker losing the TX fees.  Once the spam is written, however, the attacker needs more funds to perform a new attack.   

[iCEBREAKER]

Did he calculate how much will cost memory to keep this spam ?

Your missing the point that the spammer wouldn't even try it at that cost.

If your calculation is right then using 1 mb block he has to pay $10 million per year.  (and $100M if we rise fee to $0.6)

Sunny King, the genius who created Peercoin and Primecoin, wades into the Great Fee Debate:

July 07, 2015, 10:30:33 PM
   
Weekly Update #150

    With the recent transaction volume on bitcoin network, I would like to discuss the transaction fee policy of peercoin/primecoin. I have always felt that the transaction fee design of bitcoin is overly complex, so peercoin/primecoin simplified it quite a bit, so users could have easier understanding of the policy. However, the deeper issue with bitcoin's technology is that, due to the nature of the decentralization technology, it's inherently a rather expensive settlement network. This means it's more suitable to act as a backbone network for financial systems, rather than to compete with centralized payment networks on volume and cost. This isn't obvious when bitcoin userbase is still limited, but the situation will get more and more obvious as its popularity grows.
    Originally bitcoin's transaction fee was defaulted to 0.01BTC. In fact I think this original default value was quite good, it beats having an overly complicated system in my opinion. Think about it, at current valuation it's still only one tenth the cost of bank wire networks. To prematurely increase the scale of the network, to compete against networks such as paypal or credit cards, would cause a significant loss of decentralization which by the way is what bitcoin technology and philosophy is all about. It appears that bitcoin developers are not guarding the fundamental principles with enough vigilance.
    In such spirit both peercoin/primecoin set default transaction fee to a required 0.01 coin per KB of data, in a simplified and effective fee policy from old bitcoin. The situation in bitcoin is closedly watched, the current fee policy in peercoin/primecoin likely would remain in place when upgrading to latest bitcoin codebase in the future.

I agree with this.

PS  IDK and DGAF who Rochard is, his riff on Benjamin Franklin is deliciously trenchant.

...Ah, I see he's an MPEX cohort.  Heh, no wonder mention of his name so hurts your butt.   

[Odalv]

look at this.  80K unconf tx's and 6.76TPS and yet gmax et al says there's no problem.  all that wasted computational work done by full nodes for blocks that will never clear those unconf tx's.  i told you long ago these guys will never even be able to recognize a problem even when it's staring them in the face and even after it's beat them over the head:

So the fix is to happily write these 80k spam transactions into the permanent ledger that we (full nodes) have to keep a copy of forever?

This is an order-of-magnitude estimate, but I think it's pretty convincing that it's both more expensive for the spammer and less expensive for a node/miner to store the spam than to reject it.  When the spam is rejected, it can be "re-spammed" without the attacker losing the TX fees.  Once the spam is written, however, the attacker needs more funds to perform a new attack.   

I think you have to multiply the cost with number of full nodes.

[justusranvier]

#Chinameltdown  The end of Chinese false economic prosperity (Austrian perspective)

#EconomicCrisisIsOver  US Mint Runs Out Of Silver On Same Day Price Of Silver Plunges To 2015 Lows


The 'spam issue' in Bitcoin will never be fixed (as you define it) because demand for space in the Mother of all Blockchains will always exceed supply.

Soon, wallets will support dynamic intelli-fees and fancy RBF whatnot.

In the mean time, pay 25 cents or a dollar for higher verification priority if you don't want your tx stuck.

If that's too much money for some broke cheapskates, fuck'em.  They aren't bringing "economic activity" (beyond subsidized freeloading) to Bitcoin in the first place.

@pierre_rochard

Those who would give up essential Decentralization, to purchase a little temporary Adoption, deserve neither Decentralization nor Adoption.

Quoting Rochard is the worst thing you could do besides flapping your own lips.

I wish that Pierre Rochard would stop pretending to be a proponent of Austrian school of economics and would openly come out as a Keynsian/interventionist. It would be a lot more honest.

[Peter R]

look at this.  80K unconf tx's and 6.76TPS and yet gmax et al says there's no problem.  all that wasted computational work done by full nodes for blocks that will never clear those unconf tx's.  i told you long ago these guys will never even be able to recognize a problem even when it's staring them in the face and even after it's beat them over the head:

So the fix is to happily write these 80k spam transactions into the permanent ledger that we (full nodes) have to keep a copy of forever?

This is an order-of-magnitude estimate, but I think it's pretty convincing that it's both more expensive for the spammer and less expensive for a node/miner to store the spam than to reject it.  When the spam is rejected, it can be "re-spammed" without the attacker losing the TX fees.  Once the spam is written, however, the attacker needs more funds to perform a new attack.   

I think you have to multiply the cost with number of full nodes.

Why would the cost to a particular node depend on the number of nodes?

[Adrian-x]

look at this.  80K unconf tx's and 6.76TPS and yet gmax et al says there's no problem.  all that wasted computational work done by full nodes for blocks that will never clear those unconf tx's.  i told you long ago these guys will never even be able to recognize a problem even when it's staring them in the face and even after it's beat them over the head:

So the fix is to happily write these 80k spam transactions into the permanent ledger that we (full nodes) have to keep a copy of forever?

Spam tx's are by definition economic transactions someone finds inappropriate, and individual judgments calls are not part of the protocol, that's bitcoin, I know it sounds counter intuitive to store all tx's but that was what I though when I first read the whitepaper in March of 2011.

I was very dubious and though Satoshi must be wrong even I knew this would never scale... well I'm not so sure i have perfect knowledge and I see evidence to suggest I was wrong, and I now believe its probably necessary.  

anyway to say 6 years after bitcoin has grown that storing transactions and blocks for ever should change is not keeping with the idea that is Bitcoin.  

[Adrian-x]

look at this.  80K unconf tx's and 6.76TPS and yet gmax et al says there's no problem.  all that wasted computational work done by full nodes for blocks that will never clear those unconf tx's.  i told you long ago these guys will never even be able to recognize a problem even when it's staring them in the face and even after it's beat them over the head:

So the fix is to happily write these 80k spam transactions into the permanent ledger that we (full nodes) have to keep a copy of forever?

This is an order-of-magnitude estimate, but I think it's pretty convincing that it's both more expensive for the spammer and less expensive for a node/miner to store the spam than to reject it.  When the spam is rejected, it can be "re-spammed" without the attacker losing the TX fees.  Once the spam is written, however, the attacker needs more funds to perform a new attack.   

I think you have to multiply the cost with number of full nodes.

no the cost to nodes in your model is "centralization*", the fees go to the miners who write the transactions the cost of running a node, storing the transaction is not a factor.

* an undefined term that is not a risk to the success of bitcoin

[iCEBREAKER]

I wish that Pierre Rochard would stop pretending to be a proponent of Austrian school of economics and would openly come out as a Keynsian/interventionist. It would be a lot more honest.

I wish you and Frap.doc would spend less time fretting about Rochard, and more time working on an objective definition of the term 'overcapacity' (in the context of Bitcoin and its various metrics).

We keep hearing 'ZOMG BTC is overcapacity, we need bigger blocks ASAP' but nobody has bothered to define what that means.

(And yes, I will go back and use everything you've said whining about the ambiguity/subjectivity of the term 'decentralized' to make the same demands of you and Frap.doc's ambiguous/subjective bugbear.  Just in case you aren't sure whether or not I'm mocking you, let me be clear: I am mocking you.   )

[cypherdoc]

Spam tx's are by definition economic transactions someone finds inappropriate, and individual judgments calls are not part of the protocol, that's bitcoin

Miners can choose what to include in the blocks they build.

anyway to say 6 years after bitcoin has grown that storing transactions and blocks for ever should change is not keeping with the idea that is Bitcoin.  

OK. I'm not sure anyone suggested otherwise.

Don't forget that with pruning you'll be able to trim your node if you want while turning the full validation over to specialized nodes.

[Adrian-x]

Spam tx's are by definition economic transactions someone finds inappropriate, and individual judgments calls are not part of the protocol, that's bitcoin

Miners can choose what to include in the blocks they build.

anyway to say 6 years after bitcoin has grown that storing transactions and blocks for ever should change is not keeping with the idea that is Bitcoin.  

OK. I'm not sure anyone suggested otherwise.

Maybe I misread the tone of your concern about storing spam forever.  

I agree miners can choose what to include, this is important and must not be manipulated by the protocol, the market for fees must be free of manipulation to be successful, it will always be free so long as new market participants are aloud to compete, and the number of transactions are not artificially limited.  

[iCEBREAKER]

Don't forget that with pruning you'll be able to trim your node if you want while turning the full validation over to specialized nodes.

Yes, let's all prune trustlessness, the raison d'etre of bitcoin, from our nodes for the sake of adoption at any cost.

/African kid fetish

[Odalv]

Why would the cost to a particular node depend on the number of nodes?

lol, do we have single centralized server ?

[sidhujag]

Spam tx's are by definition economic transactions someone finds inappropriate, and individual judgments calls are not part of the protocol, that's bitcoin

Miners can choose what to include in the blocks they build.

anyway to say 6 years after bitcoin has grown that storing transactions and blocks for ever should change is not keeping with the idea that is Bitcoin.  

OK. I'm not sure anyone suggested otherwise.

Don't forget that with pruning you'll be able to trim your node if you want while turning the full validation over to specialized nodes.

I think bandwidth is a bigger issue than storage costs. Pruning does nothing for bandwidth.

[Peter R]

Why would the cost to a particular node depend on the number of nodes?

lol, do we have single centralized server ?

OK, it sounds like you're looking at the costs to the network as a whole, rather than the cost to an individual node.  Indeed this cost will be higher (cost/node * number of nodes).  

However, the table I originally posted specifically addressed the cost per node. Here's a new one where I've estimated the cost to the network (blue column):



So...which is the important cost?  In my opinion, it's the cost per node.  As a node operator or as a miner, I only care how much it costs me.  If my actions can effectively charge the spammer $1200 while costing me a few pennies, I'll do it!  Whether a thousand or a million other nodes also contribute a few pennies to penalize the spammer makes no difference to me.  

How are you looking at the issue?

[iCEBREAKER]

I think bandwidth is a bigger issue than storage costs. Pruning does nothing for bandwidth.

Thanks to the end of the economic crisis, benevolent cash-flush corporations will Soon^TM begin rolling out fiber to every home so every pig farmer in Moldova/Greece/Florida/Ukraine/etc. can binge watch Marco Polo in 1080p on Netflix.  (According to Gavin; YMMV.)

Just as soon as their stocks start trading again....WAIT FOR IT...any second now...         

[cypherdoc]

Spam tx's are by definition economic transactions someone finds inappropriate, and individual judgments calls are not part of the protocol, that's bitcoin

Miners can choose what to include in the blocks they build.

anyway to say 6 years after bitcoin has grown that storing transactions and blocks for ever should change is not keeping with the idea that is Bitcoin.  

OK. I'm not sure anyone suggested otherwise.

Don't forget that with pruning you'll be able to trim your node if you want while turning the full validation over to specialized nodes.

I think bandwidth is a bigger issue than storage costs. Pruning does nothing for bandwidth.

Yes, but the ongoing spam shows clearly that all full nodes are handling the traffic just fine. We were told that they would crash and burn from overloaded memory. Not true.

The real shame is that they've been forced to do ask the validation and store it in mempool waiting for blocks that never come because of the 1MB cap. What a waste but it shows that the capacity of the network is far higher than we've been told.

If you look at the stream  of full blocks going by, to me I see miners begging to be able to process bigger blocks to clear their mempools. That would force the spammers losses and eventually kill him. 

[nby]

Why would the cost to a particular node depend on the number of nodes?

lol, do we have single centralized server ?

We don't.
But why should a single node owner pay for the storage used by every other node in the network, instead of bearing just its share ?
Because that's what it looks you're implying...