Bitcoin Forum
December 05, 2016, 12:45:56 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Satoshi Dice polluting Bitcoin?  (Read 15158 times)
Realpra
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 819


View Profile
June 10, 2012, 05:08:50 PM
 #21

Pruning the blockchain should be on top of the todo list. According to the wiki, a block could be reduced to 80 bytes at best. With currently 183882 blocks, that's a bit over 14MB. Even if we double this to compensate for not-perfect prunings, this blockchain could be kept entirely in memory which would also remove the disk-bottleneck, killing two birds with one stone. Not to mention backups get way faster too.

Yes it should, however you will likely not get near 14mb.

Pruning works by removing most of the spent transactions, much of the current blockchain must still be needed information.

I am also worried the mere transmission of blocks will someday become an issue.


As to the thread topic I think testing the network with something mostly non-critical is great, makes for expendable buffer.

Cheap and sexy Bitcoin card/hardware wallet, buy here:
http://BlochsTech.com
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480941956
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480941956

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480941956
Reply with quote  #2

1480941956
Report to moderator
1480941956
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480941956

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480941956
Reply with quote  #2

1480941956
Report to moderator
1480941956
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480941956

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480941956
Reply with quote  #2

1480941956
Report to moderator
finway
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714


View Profile
June 10, 2012, 05:14:02 PM
 #22

This is inevitable.

Portnoy
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1820

My money; Our Bitcoin.


View Profile
June 10, 2012, 05:15:49 PM
 #23


The downside for the owner..... competition.  This site is making big $.  It can be copied with even lower payout to the house.  I would be surprised if it was not copied within 30 days.  

May not be exactly the same in every way but this has already happened... bitcoin-dice.    

 

Buy Bitcoin from CoinbaseXapo
Faucets & Earn Bitcoin Sites: FreeBitco.in; BitsForClicks; Moonbit
John (John K.)
Global Troll-buster and
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092


Will read PM's. Have more time lately


View Profile
June 10, 2012, 05:22:05 PM
 #24

We need to implement blockchain pruning. Else I would be off using Electrum or one of those blockchain-less wallets as my poor Truecrypt partition is constantly running out of space.

My BTC Tip Jar: 1Pgvfy19uwtYe5o9dg3zZsAjgCPt3XZqz9 , GPG ID: B3AAEEB0 ,OTC ID: johnthedong
Escrow service is available on a case by case basis! (PM Me to verify I'm the escrow!)

uck
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 95


View Profile
June 10, 2012, 05:28:06 PM
 #25

To solve the transaction log problem? couldn't the transaction log downloaded to each user be just a hash of what the original transaction record was, and store the actual log entries in a common spot on the internet? then if you ever need to know the transaction log actual data, you could refer to the common location(s) and your hash would prove that the data was what should be there?

imsaguy
General failure and former
VIP
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 574

Don't send me a pm unless you gpg encrypt it.


View Profile WWW
June 10, 2012, 05:35:03 PM
 #26

We need to implement blockchain pruning. Else I would be off using Electrum or one of those blockchain-less wallets as my poor Truecrypt partition is constantly running out of space.

I fixed that issue.. I don't truecrypt the blockchain, only the wallet.  Make a symlink of the wallet file from your datadir to your truecrypt volume.  Leave the blockchain in the normal datadir.  Even if someone hacks your blockchain file and it is replaced with something else, once your client connects to the network, it'll correct itself.  If you're worried about config file corruption/replacement, then keep your config file on the truecrypt partition.  I now can run with a sub 2GB truecrypt that holds all of my important bitcoin data, which is small enough to stash in multiple places for backup.

Coming Soon!™ © imsaguy 2011-2013, All rights reserved.

EIEIO:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=60117.0

Shades Minoco Collection Thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=65989
Payment Address: http://btc.to/5r6
John (John K.)
Global Troll-buster and
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092


Will read PM's. Have more time lately


View Profile
June 10, 2012, 05:44:15 PM
 #27

We need to implement blockchain pruning. Else I would be off using Electrum or one of those blockchain-less wallets as my poor Truecrypt partition is constantly running out of space.

I fixed that issue.. I don't truecrypt the blockchain, only the wallet.  Make a symlink of the wallet file from your datadir to your truecrypt volume.  Leave the blockchain in the normal datadir.  Even if someone hacks your blockchain file and it is replaced with something else, once your client connects to the network, it'll correct itself.  If you're worried about config file corruption/replacement, then keep your config file on the truecrypt partition.  I now can run with a sub 2GB truecrypt that holds all of my important bitcoin data, which is small enough to stash in multiple places for backup.
Thanks for the tip!  Cheesy  Guess I'll need to relocate my wallet, but it's better then relocating it when the blockchain is too big though.

My BTC Tip Jar: 1Pgvfy19uwtYe5o9dg3zZsAjgCPt3XZqz9 , GPG ID: B3AAEEB0 ,OTC ID: johnthedong
Escrow service is available on a case by case basis! (PM Me to verify I'm the escrow!)

wareen
Millionaire
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742

bitcoin-austria.at


View Profile
June 10, 2012, 05:54:06 PM
 #28

I am also worried the mere transmission of blocks will someday become an issue.
I don't think that would be the problem - even at VISA volume levels, transmission of the transactions would only require a continuous transfer rate of about 20Mbit/s (from the top of my head). That's much to store over an extended period of time, but not too much to transmit. Of course there would have to be some changes/optimizations as to how blocks are transmitted.
Littleshop
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316



View Profile WWW
June 10, 2012, 06:39:10 PM
 #29

One more thing...

The early internet was 'polluted' with porn yet that in many peoples minds is what really got the internet in many of the early adopter houses (basements??).  Satoshi dice is in a way one of the killer apps of bitcoin.  It is something new based off of something old just like internet porn, and it has the potential to bring many people to bitcoin.  I thought it would be poker but so far that has not happened.....

It may be things like Satoshi dice that bring bitcoin to the masses. 

Pollution=adoption.

arklan
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204


Just along for the ride...


View Profile
June 10, 2012, 06:41:00 PM
 #30

poker needs other players, dice, not so much.
Vod
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848


Licking my boob since 1970


View Profile WWW
June 10, 2012, 09:38:03 PM
 #31

To solve the transaction log problem? couldn't the transaction log downloaded to each user be just a hash of what the original transaction record was, and store the actual log entries in a common spot on the internet? then if you ever need to know the transaction log actual data, you could refer to the common location(s) and your hash would prove that the data was what should be there?


Then Bitcoin is no longer decentralized, is it?

I'm into creating universes, smiting people, writing holy books and listening to prayers.
If you want your prayers answered, you must donate to 1CDyx8AUTiYXS1ThcBU3vy4SJWQq6pdFMH
casascius
Mike Caldwell
VIP
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344


The Casascius 1oz 10BTC Silver Round (w/ Gold B)


View Profile WWW
June 10, 2012, 09:43:25 PM
 #32

I've thought of complaining about the noise made by Satoshi Dice as well, but actually think that forcing us to consider the ever-growing block chain is a good thing.

One solution I could think of would be to fork the client (not the chain) and have it start with a "super block chain" that contains a digest of the first 200001 blocks, consisting of only the unspent transactions.  All of this would be "block 1" to that client.

This client would be fully compatible with the regular protocol in terms of exchanging new blocks and transactions, but it would only exchange historical blocks with others running the same fork of the client.

Companies claiming they got hacked and lost your coins sounds like fraud so perfect it could be called fashionable.  I never believe them.  If I ever experience the misfortune of a real intrusion, I declare I have been honest about the way I have managed the keys in Casascius Coins.  I maintain no ability to recover or reproduce the keys, not even under limitless duress or total intrusion.  Remember that trusting strangers with your coins without any recourse is, as a matter of principle, not a best practice.  Don't keep coins online. Use paper wallets instead.
dree12
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232



View Profile
June 10, 2012, 09:46:45 PM
 #33

To solve the transaction log problem? couldn't the transaction log downloaded to each user be just a hash of what the original transaction record was, and store the actual log entries in a common spot on the internet? then if you ever need to know the transaction log actual data, you could refer to the common location(s) and your hash would prove that the data was what should be there?


Then Bitcoin is no longer decentralized, is it?
Bitcoin is not decentralized anyways. It is distributed among the full nodes, and most trust is placed upon the miners. As long as it is possible for anyone to keep a record if they wish, Bitcoin can be considered distributed enough to avoid centralization.

The choice of trust/no trust is key.

I've thought of complaining about the noise made by Satoshi Dice as well, but actually think that forcing us to consider the ever-growing block chain is a good thing.

One solution I could think of would be to fork the client (not the chain) and have it start with a "super block chain" that contains a digest of the first 200001 blocks, consisting of only the unspent transactions.  All of this would be "block 1" to that client.

This client would be fully compatible with the regular protocol in terms of exchanging new blocks and transactions, but it would only exchange historical blocks with others running the same fork of the client.

This sounds like solidcoin (look how well that worked out). Besides, determining whether a transaction is "unspent" is a non-trivial issue: with advanced scripts, some transactions may be still necessary even when "spent" by someone.
interlagos
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 497


View Profile
June 10, 2012, 10:32:55 PM
 #34

I've thought of complaining about the noise made by Satoshi Dice as well, but actually think that forcing us to consider the ever-growing block chain is a good thing.

One solution I could think of would be to fork the client (not the chain) and have it start with a "super block chain" that contains a digest of the first 200001 blocks, consisting of only the unspent transactions.  All of this would be "block 1" to that client.

This client would be fully compatible with the regular protocol in terms of exchanging new blocks and transactions, but it would only exchange historical blocks with others running the same fork of the client.


I think you are talking exactly about the idea proposed here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=83645.0
and I believe it has merit to it.
Mike Hearn
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1526


View Profile
June 10, 2012, 10:47:16 PM
 #35

One quick fix we could do is have somebody implement compressed pubkeys in bitcoinj. I'll try at some point, it's just not a high priority right now for me personally. This can shrink the size of transactions SatoshiDice creates, assuming fireduck were to upgrade to the new code. I mailed him about that but got no response.

For block chain pruning to help, first we must switch Bitcoin-Qt to actually including a full copy of the block chain and database indexes. I suggested doing this months ago but some people (Gregory particularly) were dead against this. But nodes that have pruned cannot serve the chain to new users. So that means either there must be dedicated "archival nodes" that can download the entire chain to new nodes, it doesn't save any startup time or bandwidth then, or nodes must come with pre-pruned chains - this makes startup quicker and download time for the chain smaller, but means you have to trust that the included pruned chain is correct.

I think in reality that trust is not a big deal, but others have disagreed with me on it.
Realpra
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 819


View Profile
June 11, 2012, 11:08:09 AM
 #36

I am also worried the mere transmission of blocks will someday become an issue.
I don't think that would be the problem - even at VISA volume levels, transmission of the transactions would only require a continuous transfer rate of about 20Mbit/s (from the top of my head). That's much to store over an extended period of time, but not too much to transmit. Of course there would have to be some changes/optimizations as to how blocks are transmitted.

While we could rely on miner super-nodes I think this calls for some kind of parallelization.

Basically a couple of clients could choose a host client and that host would coordinate block building and only hashes would be transmitted from the clients.
Each host and client would hold a part of the block, not the whole thing.

That way you could keep up no matter the requirements and eventually the block chain could propagate fully to host/clients.

Otherwise miners have a huge incentive to process only small blocks and massively raise the fees. Considering that most miners today in fact are NOT super nodes, but pools which would loose clients quickly on blockchain "bloat" this is doubly true.

Pruning alone is not enough. At least solutions are possible, that makes me relax a bit.

Cheap and sexy Bitcoin card/hardware wallet, buy here:
http://BlochsTech.com
evoorhees
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 994


Democracy is the original 51% attack


View Profile
June 11, 2012, 02:25:58 PM
 #37

SatoshiDice is paying more miners' fees than all the rest of the network combined.
SpontaneousDisorder
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 88



View Profile
June 11, 2012, 02:45:44 PM
 #38

SatoshiDice is paying more miners' fees than all the rest of the network combined.

Good stuff. The whole idea of Bitcoin is that transactions are commoditized.
malevolent
can into space
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624



View Profile
June 11, 2012, 04:42:08 PM
 #39


I think in reality that trust is not a big deal, but others have disagreed with me on it.

Maybe now it is not much of an issue but the bigger bitcoin gets, the less centralized it should be, without relying on another entity or person.
Stephen Gornick
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988



View Profile
June 11, 2012, 04:46:55 PM
 #40

I have seen some Threads about winning Satoshi Dice with the martingale strategy (always double your bid until you win) but everyone that can do some simple elementary school maths will realise that the bank will win!

Before the max bet was lowered to 5.0 BTC, there was room for a martingale strategy to let you keep going without losing for a very long time (if you started out with a small base amount, say 0.1 BTC).  There are even a number of martingale bots that were built and run.

So, with martingale and a lot of bitcoins that you are willing to risk, you could play continuously over several days for hundreds of rounds and have say ... a 97.5% chance that you would come out ahead on SatoshiDICE, but a 2.5% chance that you would lose hundreds and hundreds of dollars worth of bitcoins.

Now if you were to extend that level of play for a for a month, there is a 2% chance you would be ahead and a 98% chance you would lose huge.

I don't know the exact %s, these are wild guesstimates.

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 »  All
  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!