Bitcoin Forum
December 04, 2016, 08:41:14 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   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 ... 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 1475 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1804284 times)
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1498


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
July 08, 2015, 05:53:33 PM
 #28481

Gavin is right about one thing however.  The sky will not fall because of full blocks.

Now please return to the normal Chicken Little routine.  It would be so quite in here without your panicked squawking.   Wink

you have no idea what a true fee mkt is.  it's not what we're getting now.  the above graph i just put up shows tremendous stress on Bitcoin usage by new and existing users.  what's ironic is that the continuous stream of full blocks is a reflection of miners begging for bigger blocks so that they can chew through that mempool in an instant.  that "clearing" of the mempool would enforce losses on the spammer.  right now, they can just recycle their spam as it gets deleted every 24 h while still causing damage to the user experience. 

get your head out of your ass.

Oh, touchy touchy!  You really don't like it when I use facts, logic, and humor to highlight the contradictions and unsupported assertions in your worldview.   Smiley

How precisely does increasing the minimum fee from ~2 to ~5 cents "damage to the user experience?"

Can you explain that as easily as I can explain how undercharging for use of an incredibly valuable service, which consumes ~1.5 days worth of an avg US home's electricity, damages the long term signalling/incentive structures of the system?

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Wallets - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }


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


"I believed @Dashpay instamine was a bug & not a feature but then read: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg13017231#msg13017231
I'm not against people making money, but can't support questionable origins."
https://twitter.com/Tone_LLT/status/717822927908024320


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

"Hard forks cannot be co
1480884074
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480884074

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480884074
Reply with quote  #2

1480884074
Report to moderator
1480884074
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480884074

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480884074
Reply with quote  #2

1480884074
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480884074
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480884074

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480884074
Reply with quote  #2

1480884074
Report to moderator
1480884074
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480884074

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480884074
Reply with quote  #2

1480884074
Report to moderator
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
July 08, 2015, 05:54:07 PM
 #28482

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 ?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 08, 2015, 05:58:39 PM
 #28483

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.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 08, 2015, 06:01:27 PM
 #28484

Gavin is right about one thing however.  The sky will not fall because of full blocks.

Now please return to the normal Chicken Little routine.  It would be so quite in here without your panicked squawking.   Wink

you have no idea what a true fee mkt is.  it's not what we're getting now.  the above graph i just put up shows tremendous stress on Bitcoin usage by new and existing users.  what's ironic is that the continuous stream of full blocks is a reflection of miners begging for bigger blocks so that they can chew through that mempool in an instant.  that "clearing" of the mempool would enforce losses on the spammer.  right now, they can just recycle their spam as it gets deleted every 24 h while still causing damage to the user experience. 

get your head out of your ass.

Oh, touchy touchy!  You really don't like it when I use facts, logic, and humor to highlight the contradictions and unsupported assertions in your worldview.   Smiley

How precisely does increasing the minimum fee from ~2 to ~5 cents "damage to the user experience?"

Can you explain that as easily as I can explain how undercharging for use of an incredibly valuable service, which consumes ~1.5 days worth of an avg US home's electricity, damages the long term signalling/incentive structures of the system?

Through lost economic activity from repeated stuck TX's. Users will just quit.

There are people from Greece on reddit who say they won't participate in Bitcoin until the spam issue is fixed.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
July 08, 2015, 06:02:57 PM
 #28485

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)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 08, 2015, 06:05:07 PM
 #28486

...  the above graph i just put up shows tremendous stress on Bitcoin usage by new and existing users.  what's ironic is that the continuous stream of full blocks is a reflection of miners begging for bigger blocks so that they can chew through that mempool in an instant.  ...

It is spam attack and with 8MB block it will be worse.

Quote from: Rusty Russell
... if blocks were 8MB: an 8MB transaction with 22,500 inputs and 3.95MB of outputs takes over 11 minutes to hash ....
worse for the attacker who would be paying 8 x in fees. miners can upgrade there CPU's if they are having problems collecting the fees.

That's why there should be no limit at which a spammer can aim for. He'd be shooting in the dark in a futile attempt to jack the mempool all the while losing money to miners who will clear his spam immediately until he capitulates from huge losses never to return.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 08, 2015, 06:07:42 PM
 #28487

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.
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1498


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
July 08, 2015, 06:13:23 PM
 #28488

#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
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Wallets - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }


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


"I believed @Dashpay instamine was a bug & not a feature but then read: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg13017231#msg13017231
I'm not against people making money, but can't support questionable origins."
https://twitter.com/Tone_LLT/status/717822927908024320


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

"Hard forks cannot be co
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 08, 2015, 06:14:10 PM
 #28489

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
 #28490

#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: 1064



View Profile
July 08, 2015, 06:16:41 PM
 #28491

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: 938



View Profile
July 08, 2015, 06:19:14 PM
 #28492

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
*
Online Online

Activity: 1498


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
July 08, 2015, 06:23:23 PM
 #28493

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
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Wallets - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }


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


"I believed @Dashpay instamine was a bug & not a feature but then read: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg13017231#msg13017231
I'm not against people making money, but can't support questionable origins."
https://twitter.com/Tone_LLT/status/717822927908024320


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

"Hard forks cannot be co
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
July 08, 2015, 06:23:41 PM
 #28494

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
 #28495

#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: 938



View Profile
July 08, 2015, 06:25:30 PM
 #28496

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: 1330



View Profile
July 08, 2015, 06:26:42 PM
 #28497

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: 1330



View Profile
July 08, 2015, 06:34:03 PM
 #28498

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
*
Online Online

Activity: 1498


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
July 08, 2015, 06:34:20 PM
 #28499

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
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Wallets - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }


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


"I believed @Dashpay instamine was a bug & not a feature but then read: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg13017231#msg13017231
I'm not against people making money, but can't support questionable origins."
https://twitter.com/Tone_LLT/status/717822927908024320


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

"Hard forks cannot be co
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 08, 2015, 06:39:33 PM
 #28500

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.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1475 ... 1560 »
  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!