Bitcoin Forum
January 20, 2017, 08:30:34 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.2  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Satoshi Dice polluting Bitcoin?  (Read 15259 times)
Red Emerald
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742



View Profile WWW
June 11, 2012, 04:48:40 PM
 #41

In my opinion, the official client needs to deal with this soon. New users will get scared off when they have to wait for days until the initial download is done (yes, the blockchain can be downloaded in hours, but many still use older hardware). It would also leave a bad impression to say "there's the official client, but the other clients are better so use those".
This sounds like a reasonable opinion, but then again how many people use the official bittorrent client compared to utorrent?

1484944234
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1484944234

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1484944234
Reply with quote  #2

1484944234
Report to moderator
No Gods or Kings. Only Bitcoin
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1484944234
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1484944234

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1484944234
Reply with quote  #2

1484944234
Report to moderator
evoorhees
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 994


Democracy is the original 51% attack


View Profile
June 11, 2012, 04:52:25 PM
 #42


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.

Bitcoin has become more decentralized over time.
http://bitcoinmagazine.net/growing-decentralization-in-the-bitcoin-economy/
Bitsky
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 546


View Profile
June 11, 2012, 05:51:56 PM
 #43

This sounds like a reasonable opinion, but then again how many people use the official bittorrent client compared to utorrent?
This sounds like a reasonable opinion, but then again how many people use utorrent to manage financial transactions?

Bounty: Earn up to 68.7 BTC
Like my post? Feel free to drop a tip to 1BitskyZbfR4irjyXDaGAM2wYKQknwX36Y
Ban4na
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 32


Ozco.in @2.7 GHash | FB: 1doqqe


View Profile
June 11, 2012, 09:30:59 PM
 #44

i didn't even know there was a "standard" Torrent client.

uTorrent and BitComet are the ones that most used i think.

---

Can someone explain how Electrum works without a blockchain?

Is it stored at a server or is it compressed in the client. Am too much of a newbie to analyze a sourcecode of something if it's not php.


Thanks in advance
~Ban4na

+1_rampone; +1_naz86
austonst
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 77



View Profile
June 11, 2012, 09:40:38 PM
 #45

Can someone explain how Electrum works without a blockchain?

Is it stored at a server or is it compressed in the client. Am too much of a newbie to analyze a sourcecode of something if it's not php.

Electrum clients talk to Electrum servers for anything requiring the full blockchain. The clients themselves just store addresses, seeds, transaction history, and so on.

Ban4na
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 32


Ozco.in @2.7 GHash | FB: 1doqqe


View Profile
June 11, 2012, 10:05:00 PM
 #46

Can someone explain how Electrum works without a blockchain?

Is it stored at a server or is it compressed in the client. Am too much of a newbie to analyze a sourcecode of something if it's not php.

Electrum clients talk to Electrum servers for anything requiring the full blockchain. The clients themselves just store addresses, seeds, transaction history, and so on.

thanks for the quick answer.

Just imagine if everyone would use electrum. Thats not really the point of decentralized and P2P.

*harsh mode on*
But i think i will have to switch to electrum because i just dont get why i should offer more than 2 Gigabytes of my Notebook SSD for some people playing an online dice game (probably even using playing bots) and polluting my PC with it.
*harsh mode off*

I know this sounds pretty harsh but i hope you get the point that i think that bitcoin is going to have a problem when the blockchain reaches 4-5 gigabytes. More than half of all Bitcoin users will have to switch to Electrum-like clients and the security of the network will be in more danger than if the blockchain size problem is solved.

I think including the first 200,000 Blocks in the client itself in a compressed way (maybe 50MB if possible) is the best way.

~Ban4na

+1_rampone; +1_naz86
dree12
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232



View Profile
June 11, 2012, 10:32:07 PM
 #47

Can someone explain how Electrum works without a blockchain?

Is it stored at a server or is it compressed in the client. Am too much of a newbie to analyze a sourcecode of something if it's not php.

Electrum clients talk to Electrum servers for anything requiring the full blockchain. The clients themselves just store addresses, seeds, transaction history, and so on.

thanks for the quick answer.

Just imagine if everyone would use electrum. Thats not really the point of decentralized and P2P.

*harsh mode on*
But i think i will have to switch to electrum because i just dont get why i should offer more than 2 Gigabytes of my Notebook SSD for some people playing an online dice game (probably even using playing bots) and polluting my PC with it.
*harsh mode off*

I know this sounds pretty harsh but i hope you get the point that i think that bitcoin is going to have a problem when the blockchain reaches 4-5 gigabytes. More than half of all Bitcoin users will have to switch to Electrum-like clients and the security of the network will be in more danger than if the blockchain size problem is solved.

I think including the first 200,000 Blocks in the client itself in a compressed way (maybe 50MB if possible) is the best way.

~Ban4na

Bitcoin is not decentralized anyways. There's no point in beating a dead horse. The choice of doing as you will is plenty good enough.
Mike Hearn
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1526


View Profile
June 11, 2012, 10:32:58 PM
 #48

It's been expected for a long time that most users will end up on lightweight clients of various forms. Satoshi himself was all for such a setup. So I wouldn't worry.
dree12
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232



View Profile
June 11, 2012, 10:33:54 PM
 #49

It's been expected for a long time that most users will end up on lightweight clients of various forms. Satoshi himself was all for such a setup. So I wouldn't worry.
Exactly, let the users decide the level of trust they will place. This is the system we have right now, and there is absolutely no problem with it.
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
June 11, 2012, 11:32:59 PM
 #50

I know this sounds pretty harsh but i hope you get the point that i think that bitcoin is going to have a problem when the blockchain reaches 4-5 gigabytes. More than half of all Bitcoin users will have to switch to Electrum-like clients and the security of the network will be in more danger than if the blockchain size problem is solved.

You do realize anyone can run an Electrum server.  Even you. 

4-5 GB per year is nothing for a VPS.  You could make the server public and help provide decentralization to electrum or keep it private and act a secure blockchain "engine" for your multiple lite clients (home client, phone client, etc).

Quote
I think including the first 200,000 Blocks in the client itself in a compressed way (maybe 50MB if possible) is the best way.
50MB is impossible.  At best fully pruned we are talking a 50% to 75% savings.  So reducing the blockchain from 1GB to say 400MB is possible but 1GB to 50MB is just pie in the sky fantasy.  Might as well wish it was 50KB.
Ban4na
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 32


Ozco.in @2.7 GHash | FB: 1doqqe


View Profile
June 11, 2012, 11:37:55 PM
 #51

someone before even said that 14 mb are technically possible so i just took  a number that would fit it somehow... did'nt know i can run an electrum server. Going to read myself into it. I already have a VPS so i could host one public there.

+1_rampone; +1_naz86
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
June 11, 2012, 11:48:14 PM
 #52

someone before even said that 14 mb are technically possible so i just took  a number that would fit it somehow... did'nt know i can run an electrum server. Going to read myself into it. I already have a VPS so i could host one public there.

That is often misquoted so you aren't alone. 

A block consists of a header and tx.  All block headers are ~14MB.  So yes if you pruned every single tx (even the ones which occurred just a few seconds ago the blockchain would be ~14MB.  However we can only prune SPENT outputs.  Outputs which have already become the input for some subsequent tx.  The exact amount we can compress the blockchain depends on the number of unspent outputs as a % of total historical outputs plus the overhead of the merkle tree structure.

Today if we removed all spent outputs from the blockchain we could cut the size roughly in half.  Maybe it ends up being 40% maybe 52.3% but roughly in half.  If in the future the ratio between unspent outputs and total outputs declines the blockchain will become "more compressible". 


ErebusBat
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 560

I am the one who knocks


View Profile
June 12, 2012, 01:08:32 AM
 #53


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.

Actually the older bitcoin gets and the block reward goes down then TX fee will need to increase as incentives to miners to keep operating.

░▒▓█ Coinroll.it - 1% House Edge Dice Game █▓▒░ • Coinroll Thread • *FREE* 100 BTC Raffle

Signup for CEX.io BitFury exchange and get GHS Instantly!  Don't wait for shipping, mine NOW!
dlasher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 468



View Profile WWW
June 13, 2012, 06:43:40 PM
 #54

One person's blockchain spam is another person's stress test.

and

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


Precisely.

Depending on who you believe... if you believe that someday BTC will replace even some percentage of electronic payments like visa/mastercard..... the network as it stands is NOT ready..  Even taking a tiny portion of existing CC transations, say 100 transactions a second and what... the bitcoin network has sometimes an hour between blocks?

Add to that: Decisions by large pools like Deepbit to selectively process or refuse transactions without at least a 0.01 transaction fee... (which is their right ) and further artificial backlog ensues..

For bitcoin to be the "big" we all want it to be, the network needs improvement... and SD is showing areas of needed improvement.

Bet away.








anfedorov
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 46


View Profile
June 14, 2012, 04:07:17 AM
 #55

[...]
Even taking a tiny portion of existing CC transations, say 100 transactions a second and what... the bitcoin network has sometimes an hour between blocks?

Add to that: Decisions by large pools like Deepbit to selectively process or refuse transactions without at least a 0.01 transaction fee... (which is their right ) and further artificial backlog ensues..

For bitcoin to be the "big" we all want it to be, the network needs improvement... and SD is showing areas of needed improvement.

Exactly this. Let's keep things in proportion: a transaction a second amounts to 86.4k/day. Even with the huge spike of SD transactions lately, the bitcoin network still processes less than 60k/day: https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions

That's less than 0.1% of credit card transactions in the US alone.

If Bitcoin is to be the popular global currency we (I think) all hope for it to become, these are issues which need to be addressed ASAP.
anfedorov
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 46


View Profile
June 14, 2012, 04:13:12 AM
 #56

Actually the older bitcoin gets and the block reward goes down then TX fee will need to increase as incentives to miners to keep operating.

Will the TX fee need to increase, or will the volume of transactions make up for it? The cost of including a transaction is what... hashing it once for inclusion in the Merkle tree? Given enough transactions, it doesn't seem like that should cost more than 1/4 penny (~what it is now).
adamstgBit
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904


Trusted Bitcoiner


View Profile WWW
June 14, 2012, 04:26:08 AM
 #57

Actually the older bitcoin gets and the block reward goes down then TX fee will need to increase as incentives to miners to keep operating.

Will the TX fee need to increase, or will the volume of transactions make up for it? The cost of including a transaction is what... hashing it once for inclusion in the Merkle tree? Given enough transactions, it doesn't seem like that should cost more than 1/4 penny (~what it is now).
0.0005 btc ~ 1/4 penny, but quite often 0

Soros Shorts
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1500



View Profile
June 17, 2012, 06:38:12 AM
 #58

Actually the older bitcoin gets and the block reward goes down then TX fee will need to increase as incentives to miners to keep operating.

Will the TX fee need to increase, or will the volume of transactions make up for it? The cost of including a transaction is what... hashing it once for inclusion in the Merkle tree? Given enough transactions, it doesn't seem like that should cost more than 1/4 penny (~what it is now).
For miners, including too many transactions into a mined block increases the risk of collision with a block generated by another miner at approximately the same fime, resulting in one of the blocks being orphaned and that miner losing both the block reward and the fee. In the even of a collision between 2 blocks, it is more likely for the larger block to get orphaned.

There are a bunch of posts over at the mining threads complaining about SatoshiDice being responsible for the recent increase in the number of orphaned blocks. Even with high Tx fees, there is a limit to how many transactions a miner will risk including into a block due to this.
Realpra
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 819


View Profile
June 17, 2012, 06:54:55 AM
 #59

For miners, including too many transactions into a mined block increases the risk of collision with a block generated by another miner at approximately the same fime, resulting in one of the blocks being orphaned and that miner losing both the block reward and the fee. In the even of a collision between 2 blocks, it is more likely for the larger block to get orphaned.

There are a bunch of posts over at the mining threads complaining about SatoshiDice being responsible for the recent increase in the number of orphaned blocks. Even with high Tx fees, there is a limit to how many transactions a miner will risk including into a block due to this.
That seems like a big problem... could we change the protocol to favor the larger block?

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

Activity: 1750



View Profile
June 17, 2012, 07:30:44 AM
 #60

For miners, including too many transactions into a mined block increases the risk of collision with a block generated by another miner at approximately the same fime, resulting in one of the blocks being orphaned and that miner losing both the block reward and the fee. In the even of a collision between 2 blocks, it is more likely for the larger block to get orphaned.

There are a bunch of posts over at the mining threads complaining about SatoshiDice being responsible for the recent increase in the number of orphaned blocks. Even with high Tx fees, there is a limit to how many transactions a miner will risk including into a block due to this.
That seems like a big problem... could we change the protocol to favor the larger block?
It seems like a nonexistant problem, unless I've totally misunderstood how mining works. If so, can anyone explain to me why including more transactions in a block increases the chance that the another block is found at the same time? The time spend hashing transactions and transmitting data is negligable compared to the time spent calculating the block header hash. And why would the block with the most transactions be more likely to be orphaned? Doesn't that depend entirely on which fork just happens to be the first to be built on, which is essentially random and completely independant of the transactions in the block?

Will pretend to do unverifiable things (while actually eating an enchilada-style burrito) for bitcoins: 1K6d1EviQKX3SVKjPYmJGyWBb1avbmCFM4
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!