Fork off

[Jammalan the Prophet]

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?

[1715267358]

1715267358

[1715267358]

1715267358

[1715267358]

1715267358

[matt4054]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[jonald_fyookball]

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]

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.

[forevernoob]

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]

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?

[cbeast]

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.

[davout]

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]

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.

[davout]

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]

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]

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_59124

I trust Andreas and Gavin myself, I say fork it.