Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Odalv]

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 posted specifically addressed the cost per node.  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?

Why do you think that there is only 1 spammer ? In reality there can be much more (100x ?) spammers than miners.  

[1714318362]

1714318362

[1714318362]

1714318362

[1714318362]

1714318362

[1714318362]

1714318362

[1714318362]

1714318362

[1714318362]

1714318362

[Odalv]

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...

Whole network must upgrade. So spammer spend $1200 but bitcoin network 10x more on upgrade,

[Peter R]

Whole network must upgrade. So spammer spend $1200 but bitcoin network 10x more on upgrade,

You must have quoted my post before I updated it with the new table to estimate the cost to the network that you were referring.  I think "10x more" is an overstatement.  It still looks like it costs the spammer more than the network as a whole [blue column] if we write the spam to the blockchain, even though I think the relevant cost is the cost per node:

[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...

Whole network must upgrade. So spammer spend $1200 but bitcoin network 10x more on upgrade,

On the other hand:
Spammer spends 0 (no fees) while whole network spends K for bandwidth

Edit: I agree in full with Peter R and what his table reports.

[cypherdoc]

A block cap doesn't discourage spam; it encourages it. That's because not only is it a target to cause congestion but the attacker knows he can congest nodes that process the spam immediately upon receipt and then store it in memory waiting for a block that never comes. Since unconfirmed TX's get deleted from mempool after 24 hours, the spam costs him nothing while at the same time disrupting user experience and growth.

What a deal. 

[Odalv]

Whole network must upgrade. So spammer spend $1200 but bitcoin network 10x more on upgrade,

You must have quoted my post before I updated it with the new table to estimate the cost to the network that you were referring.  I think "10x more" is an overstatement.  It still looks like it costs the spammer more than the network as a whole [blue column] if we write the spam to the blockchain, even though I think the relevant cost is the cost per node:

Spammer only spends money 1x during lifetime, but miner has to keep bigger disk-space forever (2 hard disc consume more electricity than single one)

[cypherdoc]

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...

Whole network must upgrade. So spammer spend $1200 but bitcoin network 10x more on upgrade,

The network will upgrade as a result of new user growth that the spammer can no longer disrupt. Meanwhile, the spammer gets taken out to the wood shed and gets raped. She won't be coming back.

[brg444]

What network disruption are we talking about here?

[Peter R]

Spammer only spends money 1x during lifetime, but miner has to keep bigger disk-space forever (2 hard disc consume more electricity than single one)

OK.  Provide me with your estimates for the following (and explain how you arrived at your numbers) and I'll update my table using your numbers:

1.  The cost per node to store 1 GB of additional blockchain data for 5 years, assume the outputs are spent.
2.  The cost per node to store 1 GB of additional blockchain data for 5 years, assuming the outputs are unspent.

[cypherdoc]

Whole network must upgrade. So spammer spend $1200 but bitcoin network 10x more on upgrade,

You must have quoted my post before I updated it with the new table to estimate the cost to the network that you were referring.  I think "10x more" is an overstatement.  It still looks like it costs the spammer more than the network as a whole [blue column] if we write the spam to the blockchain, even though I think the relevant cost is the cost per node:

Spammer only spends money 1x during lifetime, but miner has to keep bigger disk-space forever (2 hard disc consume more electricity than single one)

So what, without a cap miner will get paid to do it. And profit and get stronger which is the last thing the spammer wants especially since he can no longer disrupt the user growth which will, in the meantime, lead to squaring of the networks value (price) according to Metcalfe Law.

[Odalv]

Spammer only spends money 1x during lifetime, but miner has to keep bigger disk-space forever (2 hard disc consume more electricity than single one)

OK.  Provide me with your estimates for the following (and explain how you arrived at your numbers) and I'll update my table using your numbers:

1.  The cost per node to store 1 GB of additional blockchain data for 5 years, assume the outputs are spent.
2.  The cost per node to store 1 GB of additional blockchain data for 5 years, assuming the outputs are unspent.

I'm sorry, I have no estimates. I know that bloat-chain is not solution  There are better solutions how to organize blockchain.

My full node just crashed ... all data are lost ... downloading 6 years 25 weeks.  ... hmm I hope that it is only me and there will remain some copy of blockchain. :-)  (not joking)

[iCEBREAKER]

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 if we were foolhardy enough to implement Gavin's arbitrary, rushed, poorly-researched plan for 20MB blocks.

^Fixted for you.

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. 

Mempool is full of tx waiting to be (slowly, thanks to completely unoptimized Createnewblock) processed into new blocks.

The blocks are then propagated (slowly thanks to limited/expensive upstream bandwidth), and (eventually, thanks to slow ECDSA and quadratic scaling) validated by the receivers.

Validation is not done in mempool, as gmax and others have tried to explain to you, without success and at the cost of your remaining credibility.

The network will upgrade as a result of new user growth that the spammer can no longer disrupt. Meanwhile, the spammer gets taken out to the wood shed and gets raped. She won't be coming back.

The network does not distinguish between new users and old users.  More users will include more spammers.

Wow, you've really gone off the deep end today.  Consider a vacation, or therapy.  It's not healthy for a man of your considerable age/education/income/stature to talk like a poorly disciplined young teen on their X-Box Halo chat.

[cypherdoc]

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 if we were foolhardy enough to implement Gavin's arbitrary, rushed, poorly-researched plan for 20MB blocks.

^Fixted for you.

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. 

Mempool is full of tx waiting to be (slowly, thanks to completely unoptimized Createnewblock) processed into new blocks.

The blocks are then propagated (slowly thanks to limited/expensive upstream bandwidth), and (eventually, thanks to slow ECDSA and quadratic scaling) validated by the receivers.

Validation is not done in mempool, as gmax and others have tried to explain to you, without success and at the cost of your remaining credibility.

The network will upgrade as a result of new user growth that the spammer can no longer disrupt. Meanwhile, the spammer gets taken out to the wood shed and gets raped. She won't be coming back.

The network does not distinguish between new users and old users.  More users will include more spammers.

Wow, you've really gone off the deep end today.  Consider a vacation, or therapy.  It's not healthy for a man of your considerable age/education/income/stature to talk like a poorly disciplined young teen on their X-Box Halo chat.

All that slowness you're referring to results in the spam being deleted after 24 hours allowing recycling of the fees while still disrupting usage.

[iCEBREAKER]

Mempool is full of tx waiting to be (slowly, thanks to completely unoptimized Createnewblock) processed into new blocks.

The blocks are then propagated (slowly thanks to limited/expensive upstream bandwidth), and (eventually, thanks to slow ECDSA and quadratic scaling) validated by the receivers.

All that slowness you're referring to results in the spam being deleted after 24 hours allowing recycling of the fees while still disrupting usage.

What network disruption are we talking about here?

What usage "disruption" are we talking about here?  I fear you may be exaggerating again, as is your wont.

Fees rising from ~2 to ~5 cents is mere adjustment, not disruption.  If you're using a fixed-fee wallet/service, that's not BTC's fault.

The spam being deleted is a good thing.  It doesn't need to (and shouldn't) be included on the One True Eternal Blockchain, to be slowly propagated and validated and stored by every node until the end of Bitcoin Time.

The 24-hour deletion/resubmission cycle gives mine/pool ops/devs time to adjust their spam filters accordingly.

[Peter R]

Mempool is full of tx waiting to be (slowly, thanks to completely unoptimized Createnewblock) processed into new blocks.

Does CreateNewBlock currently take longer to execute if there are more TXs in a miner's mempool to pick from?  If so, this would add credence to Cypherdoc's hunch that miner's are producing more empty blocks when mempool swells.  

[iCEBREAKER]

Mempool is full of tx waiting to be (slowly, thanks to completely unoptimized Createnewblock) processed into new blocks.

Does CreateNewBlock currently take longer to execute if there are more TXs in a miner's mempool to pick from?  If so, this would add credence to Cypherdoc's hunch that miner's are producing more empty blocks when mempool swells.

   I think gmax already (indirectly?) answered your question here:

I expect correlation between empty blocks and mempool size-- though not for the reason you were expecting here: Createnewblock takes a long time, easily as much as 100ms,  as it sorts the mempool multiple times-- and no one has bothered optimizing this at all becuase the standard mining software will mine empty blocks while it waits for the new transaction list. So work generated in the first hundred milliseconds or so after a new block will usually be empty. (Of course miners stay on the initial work they got for a much loonger time than 100ms).

This is, however, unrelated to SPV mining-- in that case everything is still verified. As many people have pointed out (even in this thread) the interesting thing here isn't empty blocks, its the mining on an invalid chain.

but I'll attempt to unpack and contextualize his response... 


CNB execution time depends on CPU/RAM/SSD speed and mempool size, both of which are adjustable user defined values.

The theoretical "more empty blocks when mempool swells" effect only dominates when the previous block validates faster than the "100ms" maximum CNB takes to make the next one; according to gmax avg. validation times are "16-37sec" (for f2p/ant).

IOW, CNB while 'slow' in the relative sense it is unoptimized, is much (>1600-3700 times) faster than avg. blocks' verification times.

So, (if I've not failed spectacularly in my amateur hour gmax impersonation) Frap.doc's hunch only applies after empty or nearly empty, very small, tiny little blocks.

As block become larger (non-tiny/empty), verification time increases quadratically.  Absent any threshold effects, I'd expect CNB performance to be ~linear with mempool size (which, again, is adjustable, unlike previous blocksize).

Larger blocks are thus self-defeating (IE encounter negative marginal return) because their quadratically-scaling verification time greatly exceeds CNB's (perhaps linearly-scaling but in any case much faster) execution time, ensuring more empty blocks are produced exactly when network throughput/load needs non-empty blocks the most.

[Odalv]

Spammer only spends money 1x during lifetime, but miner has to keep bigger disk-space forever (2 hard disc consume more electricity than single one)

OK.  Provide me with your estimates for the following (and explain how you arrived at your numbers) and I'll update my table using your numbers:

1.  The cost per node to store 1 GB of additional blockchain data for 5 years, assume the outputs are spent.
2.  The cost per node to store 1 GB of additional blockchain data for 5 years, assuming the outputs are unspent.

I want to say. (English is not my mother tongue)

The more adoption the more spammers.  ( if only 0.1% is malicious then it is 1,000,000 spammers for every 1,000,000,000 adopters )
The more full nodes the more upgrade of whole network will cost.

=> result: increasing block size can kill bitcoin
 b/c
 a) spamming is cheaper (goes to zero)
 b) and mining costs more (goes to infinity)

[iCEBREAKER]

I want to say. (English is not my mother tongue)

The more adoption the more spammers.  ( if only 0.1% is malicious then it is 1,000,000 spammers for every 1,000,000,000 adopters )
The more full nodes the more upgrade of whole network will cost.

=> result: increasing block size can kill bitcoin

That makes sense.  English is my mother tongue, but I can't explain it any more clearly than this:

Increasing the block size limit will make more of the spam end up on chain, with lower fees. How does that help?

If blocks are 8MB, the fees will fall, therefore the cost of getting 1MB of spam on the blockchain will fall. Moving spam from the memepool (a temporary issue) to the UTXO (a permanent issue) is a bad idea. Increasing the blocksize makes the spam problem worse.

Anyway in the medium run, if the blocksize goes to 8MB, spammers will NOT need to spend 8x more to flood blocks. The necessary fees to outbid normal users will be driven by the economic demand for genuine transactions, increasing the blocksize will not necessarly increase this threshold.

[gmaxwell]

OK.  Provide me with your estimates for the following (and explain how you arrived at your numbers) and I'll update my table using your numbers:
1.  The cost per node to store 1 GB of additional blockchain data for 5 years, assume the outputs are spent.
2.  The cost per node to store 1 GB of additional blockchain data for 5 years, assuming the outputs are unspent.

I may be missing the context as this thread is high volume and I've not read any of the backlog...

But for a full verifying node, the on-going cost cost of 1GB of additional transactions with all outputs spent is 0; all the cost related to that 1GB of data is related to the bandwidth to get it to you and the verification cost, and for short term storage until its burried, after that it need not be stored.
The cost for unspent is some non-zero number which depends on your estimation of storage costs.

Does CreateNewBlock currently take longer to execute if there are more TXs in a miner's mempool to pick from?  If so, this would add credence to Cypherdoc's hunch that miner's are producing more empty blocks when mempool swells.  

Yep, I already pointed that out to you specifically! It's superlinear in the mempool size (well, ignoring caching)  But thats unrelated to f2pool/antpool and the other SPV miners, as they're not ever calling createnewblock in that case, as they're mining without even validating.   One can mine on a validated chain with no transactions while waiting for createnewblock (which is what eligius does, for example).  I also pointed out that this is trivially optimizable, but no one has bothered previously.

[tvbcof]

...
I may be missing the context as this thread is high volume and I've not read any of the backlog...

I wonder if I can get you to touch on my question here if you could:

  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg11817437#msg11817437