Bitcoin Forum
December 03, 2016, 02:35:22 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   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 ... 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 1485 1486 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1803424 times)
inca
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
July 10, 2015, 09:55:04 PM
 #28701

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.
1480732522
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480732522

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480732522
Reply with quote  #2

1480732522
Report to moderator
1480732522
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480732522

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480732522
Reply with quote  #2

1480732522
Report to moderator
1480732522
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480732522

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480732522
Reply with quote  #2

1480732522
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480732522
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480732522

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480732522
Reply with quote  #2

1480732522
Report to moderator
1480732522
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480732522

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480732522
Reply with quote  #2

1480732522
Report to moderator
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
July 10, 2015, 10:06:52 PM
 #28702

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: 1288


View Profile
July 10, 2015, 10:07:38 PM
 #28703

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?
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
July 10, 2015, 10:32:29 PM
 #28704

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
 #28705

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
 #28706

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: 1064



View Profile
July 10, 2015, 10:41:20 PM
 #28707

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
 #28708

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: 1064



View Profile
July 10, 2015, 10:56:45 PM
 #28709

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: 1064



View Profile
July 10, 2015, 11:00:55 PM
 #28710

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.
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
July 10, 2015, 11:42:20 PM
 #28711

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 :-)


When 1/7th of all bitcoin is being bought at market and redistributed to miners each year, there is going to be some interesting price action.
They attacker is going to have to print a lot of money to keep up with this.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 11, 2015, 01:23:04 AM
 #28712

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.

what i'm saying is that even with no limit the pool operators have the ability to pick and choose what tx's go into blocks thus limiting size and they can adjust the minfee that determines the size of their mempools.  all this is based on their own internal proprietary data and analysis of the network along with the feedback they get from user fees.  this should allow them to protect themselves and the network which they have every reason to want to protect since it is their source of profitability and they're not about to screw it up for some spammer.
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
July 11, 2015, 01:32:54 AM
 #28713

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.

Edit: Agree, and...
Someone just out of nowhere defined what is spam, and entered it into the code. But we have seen earlier, that not all miners care about that. It is really impossible to say, some people need small amounts. It is best that there is no agreement. Again, trust the market, don't fight it. It is natural, it comes from the human in each individual.
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
July 11, 2015, 01:37:08 AM
 #28714

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.

You are right, but there will always be a limit to capacity somewhere. Even when the physical limit is approched, bitcoin payments will continue to function, due to the above.
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
July 11, 2015, 01:40:36 AM
 #28715

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.

My gawd, that one is easy: We want a lot transactional capacity, to make bitcoin useful for many many people. It will clearly work for a few people with 1 MB, proof: it works now, but we want many many-many many many many.
msin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064


View Profile
July 11, 2015, 01:53:54 AM
 #28716

The recent surge in Backpage BTC use proves how spot on Justus was with his Black Market blog post.  Its obvious that BTC will change how we do commerce, no the other way around.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 11, 2015, 03:40:21 AM
 #28717

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.

You are right, but there will always be a limit to capacity somewhere. Even when the physical limit is approched, bitcoin payments will continue to function, due to the above.


yes, we agree.  and nobody knows where that physical limit exists.  but i do know, in a round about way; it is when the miner starts losing money.  and that might be when his orphan rate starts going up or his mempool starts expanding to the point that his users get disrupted. that's where he will back off on making large blocks or will raise his minfee to squelch the bloat of his mempool.
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
July 11, 2015, 04:45:28 AM
 #28718

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.

Edit: Agree, and...
Someone just out of nowhere defined what is spam, and entered it into the code. But we have seen earlier, that not all miners care about that. It is really impossible to say, some people need small amounts. It is best that there is no agreement. Again, trust the market, don't fight it. It is natural, it comes from the human in each individual.


Currently we have a sort of default fee, and the only resource counted is TX size.  The spam consumes also a different resource, the UXTO data set.
To charge for that resource, it might take some sort of incremental fee increase for outputs > inputs?


FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
rpietila
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386


Crypto Kingdom (Creator)


View Profile
July 11, 2015, 06:40:51 AM
 #28719

The speculation about "when it starts to hurt the users if fee is raised?" is as old as Bitcoin itself.

Personally I belong to the "not easily" camp. Of course low fee is better than high, but 0.001 would never hurt. 0.01 would be a nuisance and direct smaller amounts transfers to XMR but slowly. 0.1 is still less than international wire transfer fee, and I'd continue using BTC for large/needed transactions only. BTC1 per transfer is a lot, so I would only use it for major transfers.

Percentagewise, <0.1% of the value is insignificant, >1% is hefty.

iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
July 11, 2015, 11:36:27 AM
 #28720

The recent surge in Backpage BTC use proves how spot on Justus was with his Black Market blog post.  Its obvious that BTC will change how we do commerce, no the other way around.

Agreed.  Justus hit it out of the park with that one.

Sigworthy quotes therein:

Quote

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
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1485 1486 ... 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!