Bitcoin Forum
December 12, 2017, 06:59:08 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [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 ... 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 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2022181 times)
thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
July 10, 2015, 07:59:16 PM
 #28661



He's just confused.  He seems to want some kind of centralized control:

Quote
I think it's time for miners to drop their max block size ASAP. Or maybe a better solution will be to simply up the min fees.

But then he (correctly) suggests that the miners should make these decisions.

Quote
Yes, that's why Bitcoin has an intelligent/human component: the miners. Miners are supposed to make decisions to help filter the spam and low priority traffic, so the real transactions aren't affected. The simplest way to do this is to increase the minimum transaction fee.

Well then I guess by his own argument the miners are not finding any issue with the network as it is running today.  Its not the MINERS that have an issue (or they WOULD change their block size), its Luke jr.

(same would happen if block size got "released" to 20 or 100 MB -- not that I'm advocating for this, I'm advocating for compromise -- the miners simply would not mine gargantuan blocks.  Except for one or 2 rogue miners who might do so every once in a while for the lulz)

 




1513061948
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513061948

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513061948
Reply with quote  #2

1513061948
Report to moderator
1513061948
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513061948

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513061948
Reply with quote  #2

1513061948
Report to moderator
1513061948
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513061948

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513061948
Reply with quote  #2

1513061948
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513061948
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513061948

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513061948
Reply with quote  #2

1513061948
Report to moderator
1513061948
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513061948

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513061948
Reply with quote  #2

1513061948
Report to moderator
1513061948
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513061948

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513061948
Reply with quote  #2

1513061948
Report to moderator
GotaPauj
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168



View Profile
July 10, 2015, 08:00:20 PM
 #28662

I like gold, it shines, but bitcoin isa not a real coin
sidhujag
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666


View Profile
July 10, 2015, 08:12:36 PM
 #28663

if we are doing a hardfork anyway would lightening transactions help alleviate some of the spam attacks by creating instant transactions through locktime/multisig? Thus those that are attacked because they cant get their tx through for days can use lightening tx?

★☆★Syscoin - Decentralized Marketplace and Multisig Platform
Pay with Bitcoin, ZCash and many more
For more visit Syscoin.org  ★☆★
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840


View Profile
July 10, 2015, 09:10:43 PM
 #28664

The human aspect. What will happen (any blocksize really) if a powerful opponent fills the queue with spam transactions with high fee, like 0.01 BTC or even higher? A few million dollars could suffocate the functioning of bitcoin for months. My guess: As such situation is not advantageous for the miners despite the good fee money, they would find the spam transactions using heuristics, then fill blocks say half with spam transaction to take the good money, and half with normal transactions. The attack would be costly for the attacker, reduce the payment functionality to a degree, otherwise bitcoin would continue as always.


sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232


View Profile
July 10, 2015, 09:23:17 PM
 #28665

if we are doing a hardfork anyway would lightening transactions help alleviate some of the spam attacks by creating instant transactions through locktime/multisig? Thus those that are attacked because they cant get their tx through for days can use lightening tx?

LN would be opt- in I suppose, so if an attacker want to hit the block chain directly there's no way to block him, the Bitcoin network is open afterall. You could put in place mechanisms/incentives to dissuade those attacks, but they have to be at the protocol level I think (increase the dust fee threshold, remove tx priority based on coinbase age, ...).

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232


View Profile
July 10, 2015, 09:27:21 PM
 #28666

So your take is that devs are going full "political" rather than technical? (serious question)

If yes, what's the way to unlock this impasse?
Exactly. The heavy political bent of the core developers was obvious to me since I joined this forum. I just underestimated the amount of internal tension and mutual distrust within that group until the March 2013 event.

My proposal was published late 2011 and I always wear it in my signature:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=54382.0

In one sentence:

Don't sign political slogans like "Chancellor on the brink...", sign the "digital prospectus" specifying exactly the rules of consensus and explicitly track their inevitable changes as the world evolves, including through the splits and joins that form a DAG (directed acyclic graph), not just forks.

Posted in this thread couple of days ago:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg11664787#msg11664787



Thanks for the pointer, I will definetly have look. From a cursory Iook it seems I have a lot to digest Smiley

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 10, 2015, 09:38:58 PM
 #28667

The human aspect. What will happen (any blocksize really) if a powerful opponent fills the queue with spam transactions with high fee, like 0.01 BTC or even higher? A few million dollars could suffocate the functioning of bitcoin for months. My guess: As such situation is not advantageous for the miners despite the good fee money, they would find the spam transactions using heuristics, then fill blocks say half with spam transaction to take the good money, and half with normal transactions. The attack would be costly for the attacker, reduce the payment functionality to a degree, otherwise bitcoin would continue as always.



i was pondering this the other day.  the best way to handle it?  no limit.  let the miners chew through high fees like that.  is it even spam at that point?  who cares?  those would be tremendous profit to miners and strengthen and drive the hashrate even higher securing Bitcoin even tighter.  which ultimately is the last thing the spammer wants which would eventually cause them to conclude it wasn't worth it.  and then stop.
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
July 10, 2015, 09:49:05 PM
 #28668

if we are doing a hardfork anyway would lightening transactions help alleviate some of the spam attacks by creating instant transactions through locktime/multisig? Thus those that are attacked because they cant get their tx through for days can use lightening tx?

LN would be opt- in I suppose, so if an attacker want to hit the block chain directly there's no way to block him, the Bitcoin network is open afterall. You could put in place mechanisms/incentives to dissuade those attacks, but they have to be at the protocol level I think (increase the dust fee threshold, remove tx priority based on coinbase age, ...).

It won't be necessary to rely on LN-type solutions to overcome spam. The correct solutions exist to handle it.

This major spam attack has been instructive, and some good things will come from it, most importantly Jeff's solution to clean up tx prioritization with a fee/KB basis and a 288 block mempool expiry, and dynamic dust threshold. If it takes this type of attack to make blue-hat thinking reach the codebase - then great.

The attack was much worse than it should have been, peaking around 90,000 tx, would have been about 16,000 tx if the dust threshold was not cut in a software change last year. Mike proposed this because btc had reached the $500 region, but it was a premature proposal and simply left a bigger window for spamming.

The biggest defense to spam is the coin dust threshold, secondly it is fees. In fact, spam can be defined as txout<coin_dust, so this value should be high enough to eliminate most noise, and fees prioritize beyond that.
Greg wants software improvements in adversity, well he is getting that with wallet software, which has been the great success of decentralization, since there must be a hundred wallet providers now, of all types. So there is a lot of inertia to change, and a lot of wallet developers were happy to let a simple default fee apply to their user's tx, this is no longer sufficient. Wallets need to be more intelligent about confirmation delays and act  by raising and lowering fees acoordingly. This is happening.

It is amazing how resilient the network is with long periods of full blocks, but anyone who thinks that this is a green light for 1MB4EVR is misreading the situation. A lot of users are upset about delayed tx, but they could have applied a higher fee to beat the spam attack. This is fine when blocks are normally 40% of the of the limit. But this is not a solution when blocks are full of sensible, real-world, kosher tx. Users battling each other for block space with higher fees will be the point where the PR disaster begins.

Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840


View Profile
July 10, 2015, 09:51:23 PM
 #28669

The human aspect. What will happen (any blocksize really) if a powerful opponent fills the queue with spam transactions with high fee, like 0.01 BTC or even higher? A few million dollars could suffocate the functioning of bitcoin for months. My guess: As such situation is not advantageous for the miners despite the good fee money, they would find the spam transactions using heuristics, then fill blocks say half with spam transaction to take the good money, and half with normal transactions. The attack would be costly for the attacker, reduce the payment functionality to a degree, otherwise bitcoin would continue as always.



i was pondering this the other day.  the best way to handle it?  no limit.  let the miners chew through high fees like that.  is it even spam at that point?  who cares?  those would be tremendous profit to miners and strengthen and drive the hashrate even higher securing Bitcoin even tighter.  which ultimately is the last thing the spammer wants which would eventually cause them to conclude it wasn't worth it.  and then stop.

Yep.

Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
July 10, 2015, 09:54:16 PM
 #28670

The human aspect. What will happen (any blocksize really) if a powerful opponent fills the queue with spam transactions with high fee, like 0.01 BTC or even higher? A few million dollars could suffocate the functioning of bitcoin for months. My guess: As such situation is not advantageous for the miners despite the good fee money, they would find the spam transactions using heuristics, then fill blocks say half with spam transaction to take the good money, and half with normal transactions. The attack would be costly for the attacker, reduce the payment functionality to a degree, otherwise bitcoin would continue as always.



It will cost 40 BTC per block,  240 BTC per hour, 5 760 BTC/day,  40 320/week, 161 280/month and 1 935 360/year. ... I'll hold or just pay 0.0101 per transaction :-)
inca
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


View Profile
July 10, 2015, 09:55:04 PM
 #28671

The human aspect. What will happen (any blocksize really) if a powerful opponent fills the queue with spam transactions with high fee, like 0.01 BTC or even higher? A few million dollars could suffocate the functioning of bitcoin for months. My guess: As such situation is not advantageous for the miners despite the good fee money, they would find the spam transactions using heuristics, then fill blocks say half with spam transaction to take the good money, and half with normal transactions. The attack would be costly for the attacker, reduce the payment functionality to a degree, otherwise bitcoin would continue as always.



i was pondering this the other day.  the best way to handle it?  no limit.  let the miners chew through high fees like that.  is it even spam at that point?  who cares?  those would be tremendous profit to miners and strengthen and drive the hashrate even higher securing Bitcoin even tighter.  which ultimately is the last thing the spammer wants which would eventually cause them to conclude it wasn't worth it.  and then stop.

If bitcoin ceases to have utility due to network disruption then it will also rapidly lose it's exchange value. That is not in the interest of miners.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
July 10, 2015, 10:06:52 PM
 #28672

The only reason we have to talk about spam is because the resource allocation of network bandwidth and storage isn't handled very well.

Nobody is ever going to agree on what is or is not spam, so a more productive solution is to make whatever changes to the network are needed to ensure that everybody pays for what they use.

Once that condition is achieved, it doesn't matter how many resources people use.
sidhujag
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666


View Profile
July 10, 2015, 10:07:38 PM
 #28673

if we are doing a hardfork anyway would lightening transactions help alleviate some of the spam attacks by creating instant transactions through locktime/multisig? Thus those that are attacked because they cant get their tx through for days can use lightening tx?

LN would be opt- in I suppose, so if an attacker want to hit the block chain directly there's no way to block him, the Bitcoin network is open afterall. You could put in place mechanisms/incentives to dissuade those attacks, but they have to be at the protocol level I think (increase the dust fee threshold, remove tx priority based on coinbase age, ...).
If the attack was to dissuade users from using it because of the confirmation time of their tx's then wouldn't increasing the confirmation of their spend be enough to limit these type of attacks?

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

Activity: 1260



View Profile
July 10, 2015, 10:32:29 PM
 #28674

if we are doing a hardfork anyway would lightening transactions help alleviate some of the spam attacks by creating instant transactions through locktime/multisig? Thus those that are attacked because they cant get their tx through for days can use lightening tx?

Using LN after opening payment channel you can make "a lot of" transactions ( 10, 100, 1000, 10000 ) for free. You will pay fee when you close this channel. So it is not a problem for anybody to pay $10(or even $100) per BITCOIN transaction and make 10,000 LN transactions. It will cost you $0.01 per transaction.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 10, 2015, 10:36:03 PM
 #28675

The human aspect. What will happen (any blocksize really) if a powerful opponent fills the queue with spam transactions with high fee, like 0.01 BTC or even higher? A few million dollars could suffocate the functioning of bitcoin for months. My guess: As such situation is not advantageous for the miners despite the good fee money, they would find the spam transactions using heuristics, then fill blocks say half with spam transaction to take the good money, and half with normal transactions. The attack would be costly for the attacker, reduce the payment functionality to a degree, otherwise bitcoin would continue as always.



It will cost 40 BTC per block,  240 BTC per hour, 5 760 BTC/day,  40 320/week, 161 280/month and 1 935 360/year. ... I'll hold or just pay 0.0101 per transaction :-)


but can't you see that w/o a limit Bitcoin actually could inflict huge economic losses on an attacker that keeps trying or goes too far.  there's a dark, unknown ceiling there for him that could inflict serious losses.  i for one would love to see that happen as it would strengthen miners greatly as well as Bitcoin generally.  this is what we've always wanted for miners; fee income security to replace block rewards.  no amount of block heuristics, rules, limits, or sizes can predict the appropriate amount of "regulation" by core dev.  they need to open up the limit and let free mkt forces run.  b/c Bitcoin is open and honest, it will crush anyone wanting to damage it thru nefarious means.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 10, 2015, 10:40:09 PM
 #28676

The human aspect. What will happen (any blocksize really) if a powerful opponent fills the queue with spam transactions with high fee, like 0.01 BTC or even higher? A few million dollars could suffocate the functioning of bitcoin for months. My guess: As such situation is not advantageous for the miners despite the good fee money, they would find the spam transactions using heuristics, then fill blocks say half with spam transaction to take the good money, and half with normal transactions. The attack would be costly for the attacker, reduce the payment functionality to a degree, otherwise bitcoin would continue as always.



i was pondering this the other day.  the best way to handle it?  no limit.  let the miners chew through high fees like that.  is it even spam at that point?  who cares?  those would be tremendous profit to miners and strengthen and drive the hashrate even higher securing Bitcoin even tighter.  which ultimately is the last thing the spammer wants which would eventually cause them to conclude it wasn't worth it.  and then stop.

If bitcoin ceases to have utility due to network disruption then it will also rapidly lose it's exchange value. That is not in the interest of miners.

why would miners ever let disruption happen when they have the power to react by trimming down the sizes of the blocks they produce while in tandem being able to adjust minfee?
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
July 10, 2015, 10:41:20 PM
 #28677

The human aspect. What will happen (any blocksize really) if a powerful opponent fills the queue with spam transactions with high fee, like 0.01 BTC or even higher? A few million dollars could suffocate the functioning of bitcoin for months. My guess: As such situation is not advantageous for the miners despite the good fee money, they would find the spam transactions using heuristics, then fill blocks say half with spam transaction to take the good money, and half with normal transactions. The attack would be costly for the attacker, reduce the payment functionality to a degree, otherwise bitcoin would continue as always.



It will cost 40 BTC per block,  240 BTC per hour, 5 760 BTC/day,  40 320/week, 161 280/month and 1 935 360/year. ... I'll hold or just pay 0.0101 per transaction :-)


but can't you see that w/o a limit Bitcoin actually could inflict huge economic losses on an attacker that keeps trying or goes too far.  there's a dark, unknown path there for him that could inflict serious losses.  i for one would love to see that happen as it would strengthen miners greatly as well as Bitcoin generally.  this is what we've always wanted for miners; fee income security to replace block rewards.  no amount of block heuristics, rules, limits, or sizes can predict the appropriate amount of "regulation" by core dev.  they need to open up the limit and let free mkt forces run.  b/c Bitcoin is open and honest, it will crush anyone wanting to damage it thru nefarious means.

No one will pay you 0.01 BTC per transaction if they can pay you NOTHING. People are not idiots. They will flood you with useless transactions for free.

Edit:
Believe me. If it is 1 MB, 10 MB, 100 MB or 10,000 MB ... once it is free they will eat you.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 10, 2015, 10:54:05 PM
 #28678

The human aspect. What will happen (any blocksize really) if a powerful opponent fills the queue with spam transactions with high fee, like 0.01 BTC or even higher? A few million dollars could suffocate the functioning of bitcoin for months. My guess: As such situation is not advantageous for the miners despite the good fee money, they would find the spam transactions using heuristics, then fill blocks say half with spam transaction to take the good money, and half with normal transactions. The attack would be costly for the attacker, reduce the payment functionality to a degree, otherwise bitcoin would continue as always.



It will cost 40 BTC per block,  240 BTC per hour, 5 760 BTC/day,  40 320/week, 161 280/month and 1 935 360/year. ... I'll hold or just pay 0.0101 per transaction :-)


but can't you see that w/o a limit Bitcoin actually could inflict huge economic losses on an attacker that keeps trying or goes too far.  there's a dark, unknown path there for him that could inflict serious losses.  i for one would love to see that happen as it would strengthen miners greatly as well as Bitcoin generally.  this is what we've always wanted for miners; fee income security to replace block rewards.  no amount of block heuristics, rules, limits, or sizes can predict the appropriate amount of "regulation" by core dev.  they need to open up the limit and let free mkt forces run.  b/c Bitcoin is open and honest, it will crush anyone wanting to damage it thru nefarious means.

No one will pay you 0.01 BTC per transaction if they can pay you NOTHING. People are not idiots. They will flood you with useless transactions for free.

Edit:
Believe me. If it is 1 MB, 10 MB, 100 MB or 10,000 MB ... once it is free they will eat you.

Are you deaf? All they have to do is employ minfee.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
July 10, 2015, 10:56:45 PM
 #28679

Providing services for free(or dumping price) is only good for destroying concurrence. I'm not sure we want to destroy others miners and build monopoly.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
July 10, 2015, 11:00:55 PM
 #28680

Are you deaf? All they have to do is employ minfee.

Lol, this is how it is working now. If you want to do transaction add you transaction into block then increase fee.

Edit:
I do not understand why do we need to increase block size if we want to "employ minfee".
Let's try to "employ minfee" and if they raise too high then we will increase block size to reduce them.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 ... 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!