Bitcoin Forum
September 21, 2017, 04:09:55 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 [1424] 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1977898 times)
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1778


http://DashNdrink.com


View Profile WWW
July 08, 2015, 06:13:23 PM
 #28461

#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.

Quote
@pierre_rochard

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

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Core GUI - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }
MoneroForCash.com  |  Buy and sell XMR near you  |  Easymonero.com  |  Bitsquare.io - Decentralized XMR Exchange  |  Buy XMR with fiat
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016
Blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security.  davout 2015
Blocksize is an intentionally limited resource, like the 21e6 BTC limit.  Changing it degrades the surrounding economics, creating negative incentives.  Jeff Garzik 2013


The raison d'être of bitcoin is trustlessness. - Eric Lombrozo 2015
It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be “Above the Law”  Paul Sztorc 2015
Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016

Technology tends to move in the direction of making surveillance easier, and the ability of computers to track us doubles every eighteen months. - Phil Zimmerman 2013

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004
1506010195
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506010195

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506010195
Reply with quote  #2

1506010195
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 08, 2015, 06:14:10 PM
 #28462

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/
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 08, 2015, 06:16:13 PM
 #28463

#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.

Quote
@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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204



View Profile
July 08, 2015, 06:16:41 PM
 #28464

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050



View Profile
July 08, 2015, 06:19:14 PM
 #28465

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.   


Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1778


http://DashNdrink.com


View Profile WWW
July 08, 2015, 06:23:23 PM
 #28466

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:

Quote
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.   Grin

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Core GUI - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }
MoneroForCash.com  |  Buy and sell XMR near you  |  Easymonero.com  |  Bitsquare.io - Decentralized XMR Exchange  |  Buy XMR with fiat
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016
Blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security.  davout 2015
Blocksize is an intentionally limited resource, like the 21e6 BTC limit.  Changing it degrades the surrounding economics, creating negative incentives.  Jeff Garzik 2013


The raison d'être of bitcoin is trustlessness. - Eric Lombrozo 2015
It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be “Above the Law”  Paul Sztorc 2015
Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016

Technology tends to move in the direction of making surveillance easier, and the ability of computers to track us doubles every eighteen months. - Phil Zimmerman 2013

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204



View Profile
July 08, 2015, 06:23:41 PM
 #28467

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
July 08, 2015, 06:23:53 PM
 #28468

#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.

Quote
@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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050



View Profile
July 08, 2015, 06:25:30 PM
 #28469

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?

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
July 08, 2015, 06:26:42 PM
 #28470

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.  

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
July 08, 2015, 06:34:03 PM
 #28471

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

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1778


http://DashNdrink.com


View Profile WWW
July 08, 2015, 06:34:20 PM
 #28472

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.   Wink)

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Core GUI - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }
MoneroForCash.com  |  Buy and sell XMR near you  |  Easymonero.com  |  Bitsquare.io - Decentralized XMR Exchange  |  Buy XMR with fiat
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016
Blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security.  davout 2015
Blocksize is an intentionally limited resource, like the 21e6 BTC limit.  Changing it degrades the surrounding economics, creating negative incentives.  Jeff Garzik 2013


The raison d'être of bitcoin is trustlessness. - Eric Lombrozo 2015
It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be “Above the Law”  Paul Sztorc 2015
Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016

Technology tends to move in the direction of making surveillance easier, and the ability of computers to track us doubles every eighteen months. - Phil Zimmerman 2013

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 08, 2015, 06:39:33 PM
 #28473

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
July 08, 2015, 06:41:34 PM
 #28474

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.  

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1778


http://DashNdrink.com


View Profile WWW
July 08, 2015, 06:49:55 PM
 #28475

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

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Core GUI - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }
MoneroForCash.com  |  Buy and sell XMR near you  |  Easymonero.com  |  Bitsquare.io - Decentralized XMR Exchange  |  Buy XMR with fiat
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016
Blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security.  davout 2015
Blocksize is an intentionally limited resource, like the 21e6 BTC limit.  Changing it degrades the surrounding economics, creating negative incentives.  Jeff Garzik 2013


The raison d'être of bitcoin is trustlessness. - Eric Lombrozo 2015
It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be “Above the Law”  Paul Sztorc 2015
Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016

Technology tends to move in the direction of making surveillance easier, and the ability of computers to track us doubles every eighteen months. - Phil Zimmerman 2013

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204



View Profile
July 08, 2015, 06:55:58 PM
 #28476

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

lol, do we have single centralized server ?
sidhujag
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582


View Profile
July 08, 2015, 06:56:01 PM
 #28477

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.

★☆★Syscoin - Decentralized Marketplace and Multisig Platform
Pay with Bitcoin, ZCash and many more
For more visit Syscoin.org  ★☆★
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050



View Profile
July 08, 2015, 07:06:17 PM
 #28478

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?

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1778


http://DashNdrink.com


View Profile WWW
July 08, 2015, 07:09:38 PM
 #28479

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 SoonTM 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...  Embarrassed    Huh   Embarrassed

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Core GUI - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }
MoneroForCash.com  |  Buy and sell XMR near you  |  Easymonero.com  |  Bitsquare.io - Decentralized XMR Exchange  |  Buy XMR with fiat
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016
Blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security.  davout 2015
Blocksize is an intentionally limited resource, like the 21e6 BTC limit.  Changing it degrades the surrounding economics, creating negative incentives.  Jeff Garzik 2013


The raison d'être of bitcoin is trustlessness. - Eric Lombrozo 2015
It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be “Above the Law”  Paul Sztorc 2015
Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016

Technology tends to move in the direction of making surveillance easier, and the ability of computers to track us doubles every eighteen months. - Phil Zimmerman 2013

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 08, 2015, 07:12:30 PM
 #28480

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. 
Pages: « 1 ... 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 [1424] 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 ... 1558 »
  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!