Jammalan the Prophet
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 14, 2015, 11:31:11 PM |
|
I don't know if anybody has calculated this before as it seems pretty stupid , but how much it will cost in transaction fees to fill all the blocks to the maximum ?
Right now. Less than 1 BTC per block, or about 100 BTC per day. Which is a relatively cheap attack. The limit creates an increasing risk of this event as tx volumes approach it. Thanks for the answer. So if one lunatic decided to throw this money away everyday what will happen to legit transactions ? I know there is a transaction pool for most clients but i guess there is a time limit also i guess. It does sound idiotic but this a cheaper way of attacking the blockchain than trying to build up 51% hash power. So , is this kind of attack possible ? Can it bring legit transactions to a halt?
|
|
|
|
matt4054
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1035
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 14, 2015, 11:34:40 PM |
|
It does sound idiotic but this a cheaper way of attacking the blockchain than trying to build up 51% hash power. So , is this kind of attack possible ? Can it bring legit transactions to a halt?
Yes and no, legit transactions would have to pay a higher fee than normal to get through during the attack.
|
|
|
|
solex
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1006
100 satoshis -> ISO code
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 14, 2015, 11:39:30 PM |
|
It does sound idiotic but this a cheaper way of attacking the blockchain than trying to build up 51% hash power. So , is this kind of attack possible ? Can it bring legit transactions to a halt?
Yes and no, legit transactions would have to pay a higher fee than normal to get through during the attack. True, ordinary users would have to pay more than the block-stuffer. It becomes somewhat of a bidding war, but also a huge inconvenience for users as there is no replace-unconf-tx-with-a-higher-fee yet.
|
|
|
|
QuestionAuthority
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1393
You lead and I'll watch you walk away.
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 14, 2015, 11:43:03 PM |
|
I don't know if anybody has calculated this before as it seems pretty stupid , but how much it will cost in transaction fees to fill all the blocks to the maximum ?
Right now. Less than 1 BTC per block, or about 100 BTC per day. Which is a relatively cheap attack. The limit creates an increasing risk of this event as tx volumes approach it. Thanks for the answer. So if one lunatic decided to throw this money away everyday what will happen to legit transactions ? I know there is a transaction pool for most clients but i guess there is a time limit also i guess. It does sound idiotic but this a cheaper way of attacking the blockchain than trying to build up 51% hash power. So , is this kind of attack possible ? Can it bring legit transactions to a halt? It would be much cheaper for a hacker with thousands of zombies to do a Sybil attack. I don't think anyone would see 100 coins a day as a good option.
|
|
|
|
davout
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1007
1davout
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 15, 2015, 10:05:22 AM |
|
For a formerly important participant in this experiment, where the heck have you been?
How does your failure to see me imply my absence?
|
|
|
|
thriftshopping
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 15, 2015, 11:15:05 PM |
|
It does sound idiotic but this a cheaper way of attacking the blockchain than trying to build up 51% hash power. So , is this kind of attack possible ? Can it bring legit transactions to a halt?
Yes and no, legit transactions would have to pay a higher fee than normal to get through during the attack. True, ordinary users would have to pay more than the block-stuffer. It becomes somewhat of a bidding war, but also a huge inconvenience for users as there is no replace-unconf-tx-with-a-higher-fee yet. It would also temporarily make it easier to pull off double spending attacks with a small amount of the network hashpower (when a merchant accepts a 0/unconfirmed transaction). An attacker with a small amount of hashpower could cause the blocks found by other miners to be full and when this first starts people sending transactions will not realize that the now standard .0001 TX fee is not going to be enough to get their tx confirmed, then the miner would simply double spend a transaction of theirs that includes the "standard" .0001 tx fee once they find a block
|
|
|
|
forevernoob
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 16, 2015, 12:40:59 AM |
|
I read Mircea's blog post but I don't see any argument on why he is against the fork other than that it is a fork of Bitcoin and he doesn't like it. And that he hates Gavin.
I don't get it. Someone please explain the downside of the proposed fork. I guess one argument could be that Bitcoin is too big to fork?
|
|
|
|
gog1
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 16, 2015, 12:43:10 AM |
|
I read Mircea's blog post but I don't see any argument on why he is against the fork other than that it is a fork of Bitcoin and he doesn't like it. And that he hates Gavin.
I don't get it. Someone please explain the downside of the proposed fork. I guess one argument could be that Bitcoin is too big to fork?
a 'bug' caused a fork in March 2013 - bitcoin has to update its protocol to keep up with times; nothing wrong with a fork what has Mircea done lately for bitcoin!? he can go screw himself. he's no longer relevant in BTC world.
|
|
|
|
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 16, 2015, 01:14:54 AM |
|
I read Mircea's blog post but I don't see any argument on why he is against the fork other than that it is a fork of Bitcoin and he doesn't like it. And that he hates Gavin.
I don't get it. Someone please explain the downside of the proposed fork. I guess one argument could be that Bitcoin is too big to fork?
At this point, i'm guessing its some kind of overreaction/miscommunication. I don't think even Gavin is suggesting we fork RIGHT NOW...he's doing tests in preparation...and there is no consensus yet from the development community on whether the blocksize should be increased, or whether an alternative approach such as sidechains should be used. Certainly, there is no agreement to raise the blocksize right now, and that is probably what MP is reacting to. So bottom line, probably a lot of drama for nothing.
|
|
|
|
danielpbarron
Full Member
![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif) ![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif)
Offline
Activity: 212
Merit: 100
Daniel P. Barron
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 16, 2015, 03:53:34 AM |
|
I read Mircea's blog post but I don't see any argument on why he is against the fork other than that it is a fork of Bitcoin and he doesn't like it. And that he hates Gavin.
I don't get it. Someone please explain the downside of the proposed fork. I guess one argument could be that Bitcoin is too big to fork?
Hating Gavin is enough reason to oppose his proposed hard fork; if you don't trust the chef, don't eat his food. The reasons for opposing this specific justification for a hard fork have been covered. At this point, i'm guessing its some kind of overreaction/miscommunication. I don't think even Gavin is suggesting we fork RIGHT NOW...he's doing tests in preparation...and there is no consensus yet from the development community on whether the blocksize should be increased, or whether an alternative approach such as sidechains should be used. Certainly, there is no agreement to raise the blocksize right now, and that is probably what MP is reacting to.
So bottom line, probably a lot of drama for nothing.
The only consensus that matters is by the miners; it doesn't matter what the "development community" has to say about anything. To make it perfectly clear : irrespective of how much time and effort USG assets spend grooming Reddit and generally the crowds of self-entitled poor for support, the poor have no speaking part in Bitcoin. This is what we're doing here: reducing the franchise, reducing social benefits, reducing the welfare state. To ruin, all of them. This is what MP is reacting to. what has Mircea done lately for bitcoin!? he can go screw himself. he's no longer relevant in BTC world.
Well he's still in business, which is already a big enough achievement in the world of bitcoin; MPEx is doing about 20`000 BTC monthly trading volume. But let's see.. there's qntra, deedbot, the bitcoin foundation, gossipd, keeping the hoard out, and the DERPs. Those are the more concrete examples, and I'm probably forgetting something; there's also the more abstract value he brings in the form of insightful blog posts.
|
Marriage is a permanent bond (or should be) between a man and a woman. Scripture reveals a man has the freedom to have this marriage bond with more than one woman, if he so desires. But, anything beyond this is a perversion. -- Darwin Fish
|
|
|
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 16, 2015, 03:56:36 AM |
|
I read Mircea's blog post but I don't see any argument on why he is against the fork other than that it is a fork of Bitcoin and he doesn't like it. And that he hates Gavin.
I don't get it. Someone please explain the downside of the proposed fork. I guess one argument could be that Bitcoin is too big to fork?
Hating Gavin is enough reason to oppose his proposed hard fork; if you don't trust the chef, don't eat his food. The reasons for opposing this specific justification for a hard fork have been covered. At this point, i'm guessing its some kind of overreaction/miscommunication. I don't think even Gavin is suggesting we fork RIGHT NOW...he's doing tests in preparation...and there is no consensus yet from the development community on whether the blocksize should be increased, or whether an alternative approach such as sidechains should be used. Certainly, there is no agreement to raise the blocksize right now, and that is probably what MP is reacting to.
So bottom line, probably a lot of drama for nothing.
The only consensus that matters is by the miners; it doesn't matter what the "development community" has to say about anything. well, true, but I think the miners are influenced by the opinions and proclamations of the core developers.
|
|
|
|
Brangdon
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 17, 2015, 05:53:42 PM |
|
Miners aren't just gonna drop free money. Sure they are. Because they know they'll make more money in the long run if the average fee increases. Mining pools will help this. Without pools, miners will know that if they don't accept a given fee, some other miner will, so they lack the power to extort users. However, if a consortium of pools amounting to 51% of the hash-power agrees on a minimum fee, then (a) the other miners are likely to go along with that consensus, because they know they benefit in the long run; and (b) those that don't will find their blocks orphaned as the 51% reject blocks containing transactions that have too low fees. So the users will have no choice but to pay the minimum fee if they want to use the network at all. The only reason this hasn't happened already is that the block-reward is so high. When the block reward halves, the fees are not going to pick up the slack. If they don't, Bitcoin is doomed, because eventually the block-reward will halve to zero and fees will be all that miners get. Some of the slack may be taken up by increased volume of transactions: which is an argument for increasing the block size limit, so that miners can make more money from the extra transactions. Eventually the only options are to pay for transaction validation is to increase the fees, or increase the block-size. It won't be paid for by inflation forever.
|
Bitcoin: 1BrangfWu2YGJ8W6xNM7u66K4YNj2mie3t Nxt: NXT-XZQ9-GRW7-7STD-ES4DB
|
|
|
forevernoob
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 17, 2015, 10:45:00 PM |
|
I read Mircea's blog post but I don't see any argument on why he is against the fork other than that it is a fork of Bitcoin and he doesn't like it. And that he hates Gavin.
I don't get it. Someone please explain the downside of the proposed fork. I guess one argument could be that Bitcoin is too big to fork?
Hating Gavin is enough reason to oppose his proposed hard fork; if you don't trust the chef, don't eat his food. The reasons for opposing this specific justification for a hard fork have been covered. Point taken, thanks for giving us some more detail on the arguments against the fork.
|
|
|
|
tvbcof
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4676
Merit: 1276
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 18, 2015, 01:01:38 AM |
|
For a formerly important participant in this experiment, where the heck have you been?
How does your failure to see me imply my absence? Hey! How's my favorite hypno-toad? How's the Instawallet investigation coming along? Did Inspector Clouseau catch the baddie who hacked you 'military grade' hardware? Did you or anyone you know do anything fun with Phin's (one time) million dollars worth of BTC?
|
sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
|
|
|
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1736
Merit: 1010
Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 18, 2015, 03:45:24 AM |
|
Scarcity in terms of space in blocks for transactions to be confirmed is necessary to cultivate a healthy transaction fee market. This argument presumes the value of the transactions will justify exorbitant fees. That will end Bitcoin as a currency. I can see their point, but it's premature. Bitcoin isn't ready to replace gold as a store of value, but it's already losing power in confirming transactions. Bitcoin should work towards staying relevant as a currency until the market deems it's better as something else. While I agree with Justus that the market can help find the best equilibrium between fees and block sizes, I think it's best to allow network science to determine that ratio rather than market exploiters.
|
Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
|
|
|
davout
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1007
1davout
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 19, 2015, 11:03:45 AM |
|
Did you or anyone you know do anything fun with Phin's (one time) million dollars worth of BTC?
Imaginary BTC isn't fungible with the real thing. Scarcity in terms of space in blocks for transactions to be confirmed is necessary to cultivate a healthy transaction fee market. This argument presumes the value of the transactions will justify exorbitant fees. No it really doesn't, it just says there's a market, a set of variables and that the former will bitchslap the latter into place. I think
That remains to be demonstrated.
|
|
|
|
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1736
Merit: 1010
Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 19, 2015, 11:30:36 AM |
|
Scarcity in terms of space in blocks for transactions to be confirmed is necessary to cultivate a healthy transaction fee market. This argument presumes the value of the transactions will justify exorbitant fees. No it really doesn't, it just says there's a market, a set of variables and that the former will bitchslap the latter into place. Or it won't. You probably haven't noticed, but Bitcoin is open source and scalability is considered by the overwhelming majority to be an issue. The beauty of an open source project is you can do whatever you want and nobody will care.
|
Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
|
|
|
davout
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1007
1davout
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 19, 2015, 01:36:41 PM |
|
Or it won't.
Say it: "i'm a socialist". That'll make everything clearer. Bitcoin is open source
Sure, a lot of derps of your kind have forked bitcoin to various irrelevant altcoins. Exactly what gavin intends to do. the overwhelming majority
of redditards. so what? they're as irrelevant as dogecoin when it comes to Bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
QuestionAuthority
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1393
You lead and I'll watch you walk away.
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 19, 2015, 01:52:05 PM |
|
Did you or anyone you know do anything fun with Phin's (one time) million dollars worth of BTC?
Imaginary BTC isn't fungible with the real thing. Scarcity in terms of space in blocks for transactions to be confirmed is necessary to cultivate a healthy transaction fee market. This argument presumes the value of the transactions will justify exorbitant fees. No it really doesn't, it just says there's a market, a set of variables and that the former will bitchslap the latter into place. I think
That remains to be demonstrated. So Bruno is full of shit? You don't have any outstanding debts to anyone? That's good to hear.
|
|
|
|
CryptoClub
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1470
Merit: 1000
cryptocollectorsclub.com
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 19, 2015, 02:08:44 PM |
|
One thing to note is that Mircea is highly critical of Andreas Antonopoulous and Gavin Andresen. "Critical" as in, trying to make them look bad and calling them names. I for one hold Andreas in very high regard and do not appreciate that. And I like Gavin too. I think they are both doing their best to aid the Bitcoin space. Andreas talked to the Canadian senate and encouraged them to delay regulations for crying out loud. Mircea says: "Andreas Antonopoulous thought he was very important before his untimely death." (This statement doesn't even make sense as Andreas is more popular than ever) Mircea says: "Gavin Andresen, known principally for his costumed clown services, where he goes to various conferences dressed as this or that for the amusement of the participants." What the...? Mircea is like a rebel tyrant. Source: footnotes on http://trilema.com/2015/if-you-go-on-a-bitcoin-fork-irrespective-which-scammer-proposes-it-you-will-lose-your-bitcoins/#footnote_1_59124I trust Andreas and Gavin myself, I say fork it.
|
...
|
|
|
|