Do you think SatoshiDice is blockchain spam? Drop their TX's - Solution inside - page 9.

niko

hero member

Activity: 756

Merit: 501

There is more to Bitcoin than bitcoins.

Quote from: Raoul Duke on March 07, 2013, 08:14:21 PM

Quote from: Vernon715 on March 07, 2013, 08:10:14 PM

And why would we want to do that. Huh

I don't know... maybe you want to save 80% of the bandwidth your bitcoin client spends and 80% of the CPU cycles used to verify TX's...

If you want to save 80% of the bandwidth and CPU cycles, you could choose to block all transactions with hashes not ending in {insert some random string here}, or all transactions worth below 14.71662334 and above 0.00014455 coins, or just block transactions first heard from an IP originating in the U.S., or any other criterion. SD transactions, just like most other TX today, include TX fee, and adhere to the rules of the protocol.

Your choice to block them over any other arbitrary group of transactions, under the false pretense of "avoiding blockchain bloat," is retarded. Seriously, if you want to play cops and impose your moral views on others: the U.S. (unlike S.D.) is responsible for millions of deaths worldwide. Why not block all U.S.-originating transactions?

Fortunately, clicking the "ignore" button under your smokin' avatar is even easier then applying this retarded patch. I don't give a shit about gambling, but I think I'll roll a few dice tonight...

Raoul Duke

legendary

Activity: 1358

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Littleshop on March 07, 2013, 09:02:25 PM

Quote from: Raoul Duke on March 07, 2013, 08:57:58 PM

Quote from: Nemesis on March 07, 2013, 08:53:45 PM

Sure you can do whatever you want, but asking others to do the same is stupid.

For the last time: I'm not asking anyone to do anything. I'm informing. People will have to make up their own minds and act accordingly. Deal with it!

If you guys wish to discuss the validity of this solution, there are already threads to do that. This is an informative thread with a solution to a known problem.

I agree. You have a right to speak and inform. Others have a right to say why it is a bad idea.

I personally will include SD transactions with my miners. If my pool says they will SPECIFICALLY omit them I will leave the pool. If my pool decides to set a fee structure or rules (limits) that reduces them or collects a reasonable free I am fine with that.

I understand you. But you, being a miner, are being rewarded for those transactions. Me, being just a regular node and a non-miner, I'm being ripped of my resources with no reward whatsoever.
In fact all I have are disadvantages: Higher fees, delayed transactions and resource hogging.
Not wanting to hurt them, only wanting them not to hurt me.

Quote from: Nemesis on March 07, 2013, 09:13:23 PM

This doesnt save your HD space, and CPU power.... LOL

You do things stupid and expect to inform others ?

We also have a right to inform others about.... being "informed" by you.

The only stupid things I'm seing here are your replies... Roll Eyes

No, It doesn't save HD space, and I never said it would. You have the reading skill of a kindergartten baby. I said BANDWIDTH and CPU CYCLES. And yes, those will be saved by not relaying the transactions and by not verifying their signatures.
Stop making a fool of yourself, Nemesis... And BTW, take YOUR head out of YOUR ass as it seems to affect your reading, mmmmkay?

Nemesis

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 250

Quote from: ?? on ??

I think satoshiDICE is providing a valuable service. If one little gambling website can bring Bitcoin to it's knees (hyperbole), then Bitcoin is clearly not ready for the levels of adoption some, including myself, hope for.

satoshiDICE - stress testing Bitcoin since April 2012.

Exactly,

OP must have stuck his head up his ass for too long, and now he stinks everyone by opening his mouth.

Nemesis

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 250

Quote from: Raoul Duke on March 07, 2013, 08:57:58 PM

Quote from: Nemesis on March 07, 2013, 08:53:45 PM

Sure you can do whatever you want, but asking others to do the same is stupid.

For the last time: I'm not asking anyone to do anything. I'm informing. People will have to make up their own minds and act accordingly. Deal with it!

If you guys wish to discuss the validity of this solution, there are already threads to do that. This is an informative thread with a solution to a known problem.

This doesnt save your HD space, and CPU power.... LOL

You do things stupid and expect to inform others ?

We also have a right to inform others about.... being "informed" by you.

paraipan

legendary

Activity: 924

Merit: 1004

Firstbits: 1pirata

Quote from: Raoul Duke on March 07, 2013, 07:52:47 PM

As per my request, Gmaxwell wrote a patch to apply to the Bitcoin client that will drop all transactions to SatoshiDice and simply not relay or verify them. It will also drop all transactions that are less than 10,000 satoshis in value, so you might want to change that value to 1 or 2 satoshis, to only drop SD's losing bets tx's.

Let's show them how the free market works and that not only miners have a say on this subject!

Quote from: gmaxwell on March 07, 2013, 07:35:08 PM

Code:

diff --git a/src/main.cpp b/src/main.cpp
index 9a06dbf..d3fba73 100644
--- a/src/main.cpp
+++ b/src/main.cpp
@@ -384,8 +384,16 @@ bool CTransaction::IsStandard() const
     BOOST_FOREACH(const CTxOut& txout, vout) {
         if (!::IsStandard(txout.scriptPubKey))
             return false;
+        if (txout.scriptPubKey.size() > 6
+         && txout.scriptPubKey[0] == OP_DUP
+         && txout.scriptPubKey[3] == 0x06
+         && txout.scriptPubKey[4] == 0xf1
+         && txout.scriptPubKey[5] == 0xb6)
+            return error("CTransaction::IsStandard : ignoring transaction with 1dice output");
         if (txout.nValue == 0)
-            return false;
+            return error("CTransaction::IsStandard : ignoring transaction with 0 value output");
+        if (txout.nValue <= 10000)
+            return error("CTransaction::IsStandard : ignoring transaction with dust output");
     }
     return true;
 }

You may not be interested in the if (txout.nValue <= 10000) test, though it also gets the dice you-lost transactions and other UXTO set bloating flood.

This will make the node not relay or mine these transactions. It will, of course, still accept them in blocks.

Thanks psy, already looking for an easy way to patch bitcoin-qt.

MysteryMiner

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1049

Death to enemies!

It takes only 1 miner accepting Satoshi Dicke transactions and collecting transaction fees and the block is in blockchain with all the bloat. Of course rest of network can refuse to accept blocks containing Satoshi Spam transactions and then blockchain fork is introduced.

I love Satoshi Spam Dicke. It made me rich, I know when to pull out from gamble.

Buffer Overflow

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 1016

I can't help but feel this thread was born due to some deep underlying jealousy of SD's success issues rather than the claimed bandwidth wastage reason.

Littleshop

legendary

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1004

Quote from: Raoul Duke on March 07, 2013, 08:57:58 PM

Quote from: Nemesis on March 07, 2013, 08:53:45 PM

Sure you can do whatever you want, but asking others to do the same is stupid.

For the last time: I'm not asking anyone to do anything. I'm informing. People will have to make up their own minds and act accordingly. Deal with it!

If you guys wish to discuss the validity of this solution, there are already threads to do that. This is an informative thread with a solution to a known problem.

I agree. You have a right to speak and inform. Others have a right to say why it is a bad idea.

I personally will include SD transactions with my miners. If my pool says they will SPECIFICALLY omit them I will leave the pool. If my pool decides to set a fee structure or rules (limits) that reduces them or collects a reasonable free I am fine with that.

nikkisnowe

member

Activity: 105

Merit: 10

This solution is the equivalent of a tourniquet around the neck to stop a bloody nose.

Raoul Duke

legendary

Activity: 1358

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Nemesis on March 07, 2013, 08:53:45 PM

Sure you can do whatever you want, but asking others to do the same is stupid.

For the last time: I'm not asking anyone to do anything. I'm informing. People will have to make up their own minds and act accordingly. Deal with it!

If you guys wish to discuss the validity of this solution, there are already threads to do that. This is an informative thread with a solution to a known problem.

Nemesis

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 250

Quote from: Raoul Duke on March 07, 2013, 08:49:10 PM

Quote from: Killdozer on March 07, 2013, 08:32:31 PM

This seems pretty pointless. Even if the time goes and you actually manage to make that big number of users to run a modified client

I don't want to make anyone use it. The patch is here. Who wishes to use, go for it.
Did I say everyone should use it? No, I just said people who think SD is blockchain spam have a solution here.

They are also free to try and bypass the patch by changing the way they do business, but that would mean the patch works as predicted, wouldn't it?

Quote from: Nemesis on March 07, 2013, 08:47:50 PM

Use reward system to fix the problem, not censorship and controlling freak like this.

If the fees are too high for SatoshiDice's TX then they have to change their model.

I don't want to fix SD problem. I want to fix MY problem, and being perfectly aware I'm not special, I would almost bet others have the same problem, hence starying this thread to put the patch in front of everyone, not just miners or whoever is following that other thread.

BTW, the control freaks here are you guys who seem to be offended by this thread...

Sure you can do whatever you want, but asking others to do the same is stupid.

nikkisnowe

member

Activity: 105

Merit: 10

Yeah, that would send a great message to get bitcoin adopted by other potential businesses. "Hey come use bitcoin! Don't get too successful though, otherwise we'll block any of your transactions." Can you imagine the kind of reaction this would have? What kind of asinine suggestion is this? If you're so concerned about your precious bandwidth, don't use the full client. There are other ways to use bitcoin than to be running the full client. You are fucking idiot.

drawingthesun

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1015

And the beginning of the end starts here.

Maybe a node needs to be distributed over 2+ computers based on your internet speed and HDD space, because individuals being entire nodes is not scalable is it?

What if a node could be a pool, a single computer, a hundred computers? And you get to chose what type of node to be apart of?

This type of flexibility needs to be built otherwise Bitcoin has no chance, even Satoshi saw 100GB's of transactions per day when he devised Bitcoin.

The solution is not to target every single user that generates a lot of transactions. (Also doesn't SD pay double the minimum fee anyway?)

Raoul Duke

legendary

Activity: 1358

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Killdozer on March 07, 2013, 08:32:31 PM

This seems pretty pointless. Even if the time goes and you actually manage to make that big number of users to run a modified client

I don't want to make anyone use it. The patch is here. Who wishes to use, go for it.
Did I say everyone should use it? No, I just said people who think SD is blockchain spam have a solution here.

They are also free to try and bypass the patch by changing the way they do business, but that would mean the patch works as predicted, wouldn't it?

Quote from: Nemesis on March 07, 2013, 08:47:50 PM

Use reward system to fix the problem, not censorship and controlling freak like this.

If the fees are too high for SatoshiDice's TX then they have to change their model.

I don't want to fix SD problem. I want to fix MY problem, and being perfectly aware I'm not special, I would almost bet others have the same problem, hence starying this thread to put the patch in front of everyone, not just miners or whoever is following that other thread.

BTW, the control freaks here are you guys who seem to be offended by this thread...

Nemesis

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 250

Use reward system to fix the problem, not censorship and controlling freak like this.

If the fees are too high for SatoshiDice's TX then they have to change their model.

Killdozer

full member

Activity: 203

Merit: 100

This seems pretty pointless. Even if the time goes and you actually manage to make that big number of users to run a modified client, which is not very believable in the first place (they will need to know how to patch/recompile the client, or download the modified version from somewhere), the satoshidice is just going to modify their transactions to not being catched by that patch, and you will have to make a new patch and make everyone use that, etc...
It does not seem viable to make a patch that would somehow detect satoshidice transactions, if they really wanted to hide them...
But for your personal benefit of saved bandwidth and CPU power (does it really take that much though?), this seems like a pretty solid solution.

Raoul Duke

legendary

Activity: 1358

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Vernon715 on March 07, 2013, 08:10:14 PM

And why would we want to do that. Huh

I don't know... maybe you want to save 80% of the bandwidth your bitcoin client spends and 80% of the CPU cycles used to verify TX's...

I know I do. Don't care about gambling, and don't want to carry out their transactions. It's enough being forced to carry them on my HDD when they get included in a block.

Free market, baby. SD is free to spam the blockchain, I'm free to block them from my computer and network and not help them in any way I see fit.

BTW, this isn't a war against SD, it only a matter of having the option.
If you guys don't like me and everyone else having the option to block TX's we consider spam or prejudicial, who's trying to censor who after all?

wachtwoord

legendary

Activity: 2324

Merit: 1125

Quote from: Vernon715 on March 07, 2013, 08:10:14 PM

And why would we want to do that. Huh

Indeed.

Vernon715

full member

Activity: 182

Merit: 100

And why would we want to do that. Huh

Raoul Duke

legendary

Activity: 1358

Merit: 1002

As per my request, Gmaxwell wrote a patch to apply to the Bitcoin client that will drop all transactions to SatoshiDice and simply not relay or verify them. It will also drop all transactions that are less than 10,000 satoshis in value, so you might want to change that value to 1 or 2 satoshis, to only drop SD's losing bets tx's.

Let's show them how the free market works and that not only miners have a say on this subject!

Quote from: gmaxwell on March 07, 2013, 07:35:08 PM

Code:

diff --git a/src/main.cpp b/src/main.cpp
index 9a06dbf..d3fba73 100644
--- a/src/main.cpp
+++ b/src/main.cpp
@@ -384,8 +384,16 @@ bool CTransaction::IsStandard() const
     BOOST_FOREACH(const CTxOut& txout, vout) {
         if (!::IsStandard(txout.scriptPubKey))
             return false;
+        if (txout.scriptPubKey.size() > 6
+         && txout.scriptPubKey[0] == OP_DUP
+         && txout.scriptPubKey[3] == 0x06
+         && txout.scriptPubKey[4] == 0xf1
+         && txout.scriptPubKey[5] == 0xb6)
+            return error("CTransaction::IsStandard : ignoring transaction with 1dice output");
         if (txout.nValue == 0)
-            return false;
+            return error("CTransaction::IsStandard : ignoring transaction with 0 value output");
+        if (txout.nValue <= 10000)
+            return error("CTransaction::IsStandard : ignoring transaction with dust output");
     }
     return true;
 }

You may not be interested in the if (txout.nValue <= 10000) test, though it also gets the dice you-lost transactions and other UXTO set bloating flood.

This will make the node not relay or mine these transactions. It will, of course, still accept them in blocks.

If you are a miner you may wish to use Luke-jr's patch that may be found here and is more complete and probably not as radical as the one above by Gmaxwell: http://codepad.org/7RQZIkhd

Topic: Do you think SatoshiDice is blockchain spam? Drop their TX's - Solution inside - page 9. (Read 12859 times)