Economically Unspendable Outputs: A Problem On The Radar - page 11.

Jutarul

donator

Activity: 994

Merit: 1000

Quote from: misterbigg on March 08, 2013, 11:19:00 AM

Quote from: Jutarul on March 08, 2013, 11:10:14 AM

kinda reminds me of the nuclear waste debate. It's a future liability which is not captured by current transaction fees.

Would a simple change to the propagation rule fix this problem: ?

do not propagate if:
fee > unspent transaction output.

Yeah good analogy. It's exactly like nuclear waste.

Your suggestion is a good one; However, it is vulnerable to miners defecting. It would be in the short-term best interests for an individual miner or pool to just comment that line out.

Well at least it would be simple enough to quickly fix the code and maybe offer it as a command line option - and probably has a huge impact. Then SD needs to fix their problem...

But before implementing that, is there any conceivable reason why somebody may want to send a transaction where the fee is higher than the unspent transaction output (colored coins aside)?

misterbigg

legendary

Activity: 1064

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Jutarul on March 08, 2013, 11:10:14 AM

kinda reminds me of the nuclear waste debate. It's a future liability which is not captured by current transaction fees.

Would a simple change to the propagation rule fix this problem: ?

do not propagate if:
fee > unspent transaction output.

Yeah good analogy. It's exactly like nuclear waste.

Your suggestion is a good one; However, it is vulnerable to miners defecting. It would be in the short-term best interests for an individual miner or pool to just comment that line out.

kakobrekla

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 500

Psi laju, karavani prolaze.

All this bitching makes me wanna spam the blockchain myself, just to point out that removing SD is no solution.

anarchy

member

Activity: 102

Merit: 10

Quote from: evoorhees on March 08, 2013, 10:47:17 AM

Quote from: oleganza on March 08, 2013, 07:49:09 AM

You are basically calling for censorship based on your personal preferences, disguising them under "common good" myth. This strategy is very dishonest and reminds me of shitload of propaganda that is poured on every single person all around the world for the last several thousand years.

Quote from: Timo Y on March 08, 2013, 10:45:15 AM

If anywhere this should be solved at the protocol level, not at the social level. The bitcoin system should be completely agnostic about the intention of a transaction. All it should be concerned about is the total cost of a transaction, both to the miners and relay nodes.

If people start using patched clients to block transactions based on perceived intentions, we are going to get into a huge mess.

You guys have restored my faith in the forum community, very well said

I fully agree, it's also great to see smart people like you having an influence. Bitcoin is the greatest invention mankind has made, and it will eventually free us from oppression, people don't realise it yet. Bitcoin's essence should never be touched.

Jutarul

donator

Activity: 994

Merit: 1000

Quote from: misterbigg on March 08, 2013, 11:03:58 AM

Quote from: conv3rsion on March 08, 2013, 10:59:09 AM

Yup, that's how Bitcoin works. So what? SD paid a transaction fee to do that.

...they effectively can never be pruned.

kinda reminds me of the nuclear waste debate. It's a future liability which is not captured by current transaction fees.

Would a simple change to the propagation rule fix this problem: ?

do not propagate if:
fee > unspent transaction output.

This would prevent satoshi-type unspent transaction outputs, unless they are introduced with zero fees. And those should be filtered out heavily in a transaction fee governed market. (Although such a rule would probably have collateral damage for other valid transaction models, e.g. colored coins)

JusticeForYou

vip

Activity: 490

Merit: 271

It's not a flaw, it's competition complaining about the competition.

The best way to resolve is to increase competition.

I see SD as a anti-monopoly service. It will prevent mining consortiums from dictating their fees. They will try to do it never the less but the less greedy will gladly take less.

An extended backlog of confirms will ultimately have to lead to voluntarily reducing of difficulty through consensus. Find the 'sweet' spot.

Adapt or perish.

conv3rsion

sr. member

Activity: 310

Merit: 250

Quote from: misterbigg on March 08, 2013, 11:03:58 AM

Quote from: conv3rsion on March 08, 2013, 10:59:09 AM

Yup, that's how Bitcoin works. So what? SD paid a transaction fee to do that.

No, it's not how Bitcoin works. When you send an ordinary transaction, it's outputs only need to stay in the block chain while they are unspent. After someone spends the entire output, it can be pruned (removed from disk). Until that point it needs to stay in long term storage. Single-satoshi outputs would cost more in fees to send than the amount of the output, which is why no sane person would ever spend such an amount. For this reason they effectively can never be pruned.

Yea, it is how Bitcoin works. That's exactly WHY it works. Bitcoin is a protocol. Pruning is a client implementation. Does this make pruning techniques less efficient, yup sure does.

anarchy

member

Activity: 102

Merit: 10

Someone please ban this mrbigg troll

justusranvier

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1013

Quote from: misterbigg on March 08, 2013, 11:03:58 AM

Single-satoshi outputs would cost more in fees to send than the amount of the output, which is why no sane person would ever spend such an amount. For this reason they effectively can never be pruned.

You keep saying this no matter how many times someone points out that it isn't true.

johnyj

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1012

Beyond Imagination

Quote from: Astro on March 08, 2013, 04:48:32 AM

If the network can't handle the load from SD then we should all just pack it in and go home. You ain't seen nothin' yet.

I'm quite sure the paypal network won't even stand a chance to handle the 1/10 load from Nasdaq exchange

I never understand why a game with lot's of bot's transaction should use the world bank's transaction network

misterbigg

legendary

Activity: 1064

Merit: 1001

Quote from: conv3rsion on March 08, 2013, 10:59:09 AM

Yup, that's how Bitcoin works. So what? SD paid a transaction fee to do that.

No, it's not how Bitcoin works. When you send an ordinary transaction, it's outputs only need to stay in the block chain while they are unspent. After someone spends the entire output, it can be pruned (removed from disk). Until that point it needs to stay in long term storage. Single-satoshi outputs would cost more in fees to send than the amount of the output, which is why no sane person would ever spend such an amount. For this reason they effectively can never be pruned.

ShadowOfHarbringer

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1006

Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952

Quote from: misterbigg on March 08, 2013, 10:58:20 AM

I think that raising awareness is the best we can do.

This is not "raising awarness". This is whining like a crybaby, and spreading unnecessary panic & chaos.

Bitobsessed

sr. member

Activity: 291

Merit: 250

OP, thread title is VERY misleading...go take some prozac.

misterbigg

legendary

Activity: 1064

Merit: 1001

Quote from: evoorhees on March 08, 2013, 10:56:51 AM

Quote from: misterbigg on March 08, 2013, 10:52:11 AM

...How about just not sending dust to notify losing bets?

That would reduce the SD transactions by about 25%. Will that satisfy you and solve the "problem"? Or will this discussion flare up again when SD grows by a subsequent 33% a month later?

Again it's not the volume of transactions that is the sole problem, it's the unprunable and unspendable outputs that are sent for losing bets. They will be carried around in every copy of the block, in perpetuity, and can never be realistically spent (since it would cost more in fees than the actual amount).

The volume is making fees go up in the short term which isn't the best but that problem will go away as we get more "legitimate" transactions. But the unprunable and unspendable outputs have a permanent effect.

conv3rsion

sr. member

Activity: 310

Merit: 250

Quote from: misterbigg on March 08, 2013, 09:27:13 AM

If you read the post, then you understand that these outputs can never be realistically spent, since they would cost more in fees than the amount received.

That's only true today. Maybe in the future a bitcoin becomes divisible to 16 places. Either way, who cares?

Quote

Again, you do not understand that these transactions cannot be pruned. They must exist until the end of time, and yet the outputs cannot be spent.

So what? If disk space is a problem for you, don't run a full node. I have 10x the current size of the Bitcoin blockchain available on one thumb drive I got for $30. And guess what, it turns out that storage gets cheaper over time. Crazy huh?

Quote

No, I'm saying that we don't need fees to go up sooner than necessary just because of one bad actor on the network.

We should be thankful for this "bad actor". He is helping to understand how to deal with a larger issue by working within the system as it currently exists at a stage that is early enough to correct the problem.

Quote

Every time SatoshIDICE sends a losing bet transaction, every current node and every new node must keep a copy of the transaction until the end of time.

Yup, that's how Bitcoin works. So what? SD paid a transaction fee to do that.

misterbigg

legendary

Activity: 1064

Merit: 1001

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on March 08, 2013, 10:41:30 AM

More valuable transactions will crowd out SD ineffcient use of the resource...Personally I believe free markets are the most efficient allocator of resources (including space in a block) and thus SD isn't a "problem" long term.

It's true that SD isn't a problem long term but as of this very moment, SD transaction spam accounts for upwards of 80% of all transaction volume. There is so much of it (likely due to betting bots) that it is driving up transaction fees. Eventually fees will go up anyway but we don't need fees to increase so much yet. The block subsidy is more than enough to incentivize mining. What the SD transaction spam is doing is prematurely raising the costs of transactions at a time when Bitcoin is in it's early stage and doesn't need the burden.

Quote from: ShadowOfHarbringer on March 08, 2013, 10:45:23 AM

We need to be prepared for everything, not whine around because somebody is using a known vulnerability. Vulnerability needs to be fixed and that is end of discussion.

Yeah, I don't think anyone is disputing that the vulnerability needs to be fixed but until we have a robust technical measure in place that discourages the bad behavior (instead of just blocking any address that starts with "1dice") I think that raising awareness is the best we can do. You're more than welcome to propose solutions in the Development and Technical Discussion forum.

evoorhees

legendary

Activity: 1008

Merit: 1023

Democracy is the original 51% attack

Quote from: misterbigg on March 08, 2013, 10:52:11 AM

Quote from: evoorhees on March 08, 2013, 10:45:52 AM

Let's say I shut down SatoshiDice tomorrow

I think that's going a little too far. How about just not sending dust to notify losing bets?

That would reduce the SD transactions by about 25%. Will that satisfy you and solve the "problem"? Or will this discussion flare up again when SD grows by a subsequent 33% a month later?

mccorvic

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

After reading OP all I have to say is....da fuuuuuuuuuq?

I think I might just through a few bets into SD just to cleanse myself from all the FUD you just posted.

Jutarul

donator

Activity: 994

Merit: 1000

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on March 08, 2013, 10:41:30 AM

SD inefficiently uses a critical resource. Basically it comes down to you either believe in free markets or you don't. ... Personally I believe free markets are the most efficient allocator of resources (including space in a block) and thus SD isn't a "problem" long term.

this.

What doesn't kill you makes you stronger. SD is a business model which is viable because it kinda enjoys a free ride. The moment gambler's have to spend 50% irreversible fee on a 50:50 bet, they're going to say, WTF.

So in essence SD competes only with a zero-transaction fee market. I have no problem with miners using social criteria on a zero-transaction fee market, because it's altruistic anyway. (also note the distinction between propagation vs. validation, https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1600289)

misterbigg

legendary

Activity: 1064

Merit: 1001

Quote from: evoorhees on March 08, 2013, 10:45:52 AM

Let's say I shut down SatoshiDice tomorrow

I think that's going a little too far. How about just not sending dust to notify losing bets?

Topic: Economically Unspendable Outputs: A Problem On The Radar - page 11. (Read 16492 times)