Flood attack 0.00000001 BC | Bitcointalksearch.org

realdantreccia

hero member

Activity: 666

Merit: 516

Fuck BlackRock

Quote from: NotATether on November 05, 2021, 01:25:46 AM

There doesn't appear to be a 0.01BTC fee condition in the code anymore, because the main.h file that housed it has been completely removed and I haven't found the condition in any other include/source files.

It's definitely gone. Some vodoo magic accounting. There's quite a few places thought where forks "burn" or "destroy" 0.01 units of their coin as well as some places where Bitcoin miners "threw away" their block rewards/fees. Just some magic accounting - I always sort of keep a running accounting book as I study tx. I think it's funny how we're in a similar spot today with "ETH" -- it's 0.01+ for small 10-30 USD/transactions so I don't even bother with it. Like I missed the BTC train, I go for precursors (older codebases than the Bitcoin Core code, or bets on special forks that are long "dormant" but have a good dev community). I feel like "ETH" isn't the only chain that is gonna merge with one of its forks ('Beacon Chain' merge for ETH 2.0). Just a hunch.

NotATether

legendary

Activity: 1568

Merit: 6660

bitcoincleanup.com / bitmixlist.org

Quote from: realdantreccia on November 04, 2021, 10:00:48 PM

Quote from: nenolod on July 23, 2010, 01:03:00 AM

I do not see how it does that. 1 BTC will likely always be smaller than USD/EUR/etc, thus meaning that it can be used for micropayments.

This guy though... (necroed again - this is a great and overlooked threat with satoshi and Gavin both)

There doesn't appear to be a 0.01BTC fee condition in the code anymore, because the main.h file that housed it has been completely removed and I haven't found the condition in any other include/source files.

realdantreccia

hero member

Activity: 666

Merit: 516

Fuck BlackRock

Quote from: nenolod on July 23, 2010, 01:03:00 AM

I do not see how it does that. 1 BTC will likely always be smaller than USD/EUR/etc, thus meaning that it can be used for micropayments.

This guy though... (necroed again - this is a great and overlooked threat with satoshi and Gavin both)

davis196

hero member

Activity: 2912

Merit: 900

Quote from: Mionione on July 12, 2010, 08:04:24 AM

hi, what would happen if someone sends millions of 0.00000001 BC to millions of address please ?

=> all of the networks peers must store all transactions ?
=> are each 0.00000001 owner/hash stocked in blocks on all peers?

i don't really understand how bitcoin handle fractions of bc

First,usually there is a transaction fee which higher than 0.000000001 btc.

Second,i don`t know why would anyone give away btc for free. Grin

I think it will be good most of the wallets to add an option to accept or deny incoming transactions.

zimmah

legendary

Activity: 1106

Merit: 1005

Quote from: satoshi on August 11, 2010, 07:28:50 PM

It would be nice to keep the blk*.dat files small as long as we can.

The eventual solution will be to not care how big it gets.

But for now, while it's still small, it's nice to keep it small so new users can get going faster. When I eventually implement client-only mode, that won't matter much anymore.

There's more work to do on transaction fees. In the event of a flood, you would still be able to jump the queue and get your transactions into the next block by paying a 0.01 transaction fee. However, I haven't had time yet to add that option to the UI.

Scale or not, the test network will react in the same ways, but with much less wasted bandwidth and annoyance.

bumped and emphasis added.

Still relevant today.

Other quotes that are somewhat related:

Quote from: satoshi on July 17, 2010, 06:29:13 PM

Forgot to add the good part about micropayments. While I don't think Bitcoin is practical for smaller micropayments right now, it will eventually be as storage and bandwidth costs continue to fall. If Bitcoin catches on on a big scale, it may already be the case by that time. Another way they can become more practical is if I implement client-only mode and the number of network nodes consolidates into a smaller number of professional server farms. Whatever size micropayments you need will eventually be practical. I think in 5 or 10 years, the bandwidth and storage will seem trivial.

Note that when the 1MB limit was set, the average blocksize was like 2% of what it is now, they were still mining with laptops back then and they were apparently dealing with DOS attacks on the blockchain. A few months after the limit was put in place, satoshi still called bitcoin a "small beta project" and he intentionally wanted to keep it small (in userbase) because the network was not ready for widespread adoption yet.

vane91

member

Activity: 133

Merit: 26

i think the solution would be to have a variable that checks the bitcoin price, it could use a web resource or you can set it manually.

That way all the time the minium tx amount for relay will be 0.01$ and the tx fee will be by default 0.01-0.1$ (it will be calculated dinamically)

Miners could still mine tx under that amount but by default all clients will just forgot tx that fall under this thresholds. (as they will never confirm)

Mickeyb

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 1000

Move On !!!!!!

Quote from: unamis76 on September 21, 2015, 11:09:22 AM

Quote from: Mickeyb on September 21, 2015, 09:48:15 AM

Quote from: unamis76 on September 21, 2015, 09:16:57 AM

Quote from: SteamGamesBTC.com on September 21, 2015, 08:48:23 AM

I agree with @satoshi. The blockchain should remain as low in size as possible in my opinion. Currently it's ~50 GB and I had to turn off several full nodes I'm running, because some of my VPS are unable to handle the disc space. I guess there are much more people like me who runs full nodes on low-end servers.

Space and bandwidth eventually get cheaper and VPS prices go with that... You can have a VPS capable of running a node for as low as 6$/month last time I checked... Doesn't seem too bad

Satoshi also said we'll eventually stop worrying about how big it gets... I think we're starting to reach that point (unless Bitcoin acceptance goes through the rough from day to night!)

Bandwidth does get cheaper but not for everyone and all of the countries. I know some countries where bandwidth is the same or even decreased in the last 10 years. Disk space yes, gets cheaper for everyone.

Where I live (France) bandwidth is following and even exceeding Moore's law but I repeat, this is not as common for everybody else.

Essentially this bandwidth problem is a backbone of the current block size increase problem.

Exactly, that's why I was referring to VPS's. Even if it's not feasible to create a home node, you can rent a VPS on a place where network costs are small and run a node for the same price or even cheaper than you would at home, with the same specs as the VPS.

France (and many other places in Europe) are good places to run nodes. people from other countries can rent VPS's here and go from there.

Yes you are right! Sorry, I misunderstood your post!

unamis76

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1005

Quote from: Mickeyb on September 21, 2015, 09:48:15 AM

Quote from: unamis76 on September 21, 2015, 09:16:57 AM

Quote from: SteamGamesBTC.com on September 21, 2015, 08:48:23 AM

I agree with @satoshi. The blockchain should remain as low in size as possible in my opinion. Currently it's ~50 GB and I had to turn off several full nodes I'm running, because some of my VPS are unable to handle the disc space. I guess there are much more people like me who runs full nodes on low-end servers.

Space and bandwidth eventually get cheaper and VPS prices go with that... You can have a VPS capable of running a node for as low as 6$/month last time I checked... Doesn't seem too bad

Satoshi also said we'll eventually stop worrying about how big it gets... I think we're starting to reach that point (unless Bitcoin acceptance goes through the rough from day to night!)

Bandwidth does get cheaper but not for everyone and all of the countries. I know some countries where bandwidth is the same or even decreased in the last 10 years. Disk space yes, gets cheaper for everyone.

Where I live (France) bandwidth is following and even exceeding Moore's law but I repeat, this is not as common for everybody else.

Essentially this bandwidth problem is a backbone of the current block size increase problem.

Exactly, that's why I was referring to VPS's. Even if it's not feasible to create a home node, you can rent a VPS on a place where network costs are small and run a node for the same price or even cheaper than you would at home, with the same specs as the VPS.

France (and many other places in Europe) are good places to run nodes. people from other countries can rent VPS's here and go from there.

8831288

newbie

Activity: 40

Merit: 0

Quote from: lachesis on July 15, 2010, 01:48:21 AM

By the time everyone has Bitcoins, the fee will have been removed or adjusted.

I guess the fee will be higher rather than remove.

ranochigo

legendary

Activity: 2954

Merit: 4158

Quote from: maokoto on September 21, 2015, 09:40:22 AM

Quote from: SteamGamesBTC.com on September 21, 2015, 08:48:23 AM

I agree with @satoshi. The blockchain should remain as low in size as possible in my opinion. Currently it's ~50 GB and I had to turn off several full nodes I'm running, because some of my VPS are unable to handle the disc space. I guess there are much more people like me who runs full nodes on low-end servers.

Agree too. Perhaps there should be a system of storing only newer transactions and only some bigger nodes storing the full blockchain.

Block pruning is at the early development right now. Using it could potentially reduce the blockchain size but you can't use the wallet as of now. It is important to note that even with block pruning, you still need to download the full blockchain.

Mickeyb

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 1000

Move On !!!!!!

Quote from: unamis76 on September 21, 2015, 09:16:57 AM

Quote from: SteamGamesBTC.com on September 21, 2015, 08:48:23 AM

I agree with @satoshi. The blockchain should remain as low in size as possible in my opinion. Currently it's ~50 GB and I had to turn off several full nodes I'm running, because some of my VPS are unable to handle the disc space. I guess there are much more people like me who runs full nodes on low-end servers.

Space and bandwidth eventually get cheaper and VPS prices go with that... You can have a VPS capable of running a node for as low as 6$/month last time I checked... Doesn't seem too bad

Satoshi also said we'll eventually stop worrying about how big it gets... I think we're starting to reach that point (unless Bitcoin acceptance goes through the rough from day to night!)

Bandwidth does get cheaper but not for everyone and all of the countries. I know some countries where bandwidth is the same or even decreased in the last 10 years. Disk space yes, gets cheaper for everyone.

Where I live (France) bandwidth is following and even exceeding Moore's law but I repeat, this is not as common for everybody else.

Essentially this bandwidth problem is a backbone of the current block size increase problem.

maokoto

hero member

Activity: 770

Merit: 500

✪ NEXCHANGE | BTC, LTC, ETH & DOGE ✪

Quote from: SteamGamesBTC.com on September 21, 2015, 08:48:23 AM

I agree with @satoshi. The blockchain should remain as low in size as possible in my opinion. Currently it's ~50 GB and I had to turn off several full nodes I'm running, because some of my VPS are unable to handle the disc space. I guess there are much more people like me who runs full nodes on low-end servers.

Agree too. Perhaps there should be a system of storing only newer transactions and only some bigger nodes storing the full blockchain.

unamis76

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1005

Quote from: SteamGamesBTC.com on September 21, 2015, 08:48:23 AM

I agree with @satoshi. The blockchain should remain as low in size as possible in my opinion. Currently it's ~50 GB and I had to turn off several full nodes I'm running, because some of my VPS are unable to handle the disc space. I guess there are much more people like me who runs full nodes on low-end servers.

Space and bandwidth eventually get cheaper and VPS prices go with that... You can have a VPS capable of running a node for as low as 6$/month last time I checked... Doesn't seem too bad

Satoshi also said we'll eventually stop worrying about how big it gets... I think we're starting to reach that point (unless Bitcoin acceptance goes through the rough from day to night!)

SteamGamesBTC.com

hero member

Activity: 734

Merit: 507

I agree with @satoshi. The blockchain should remain as low in size as possible in my opinion. Currently it's ~50 GB and I had to turn off several full nodes I'm running, because some of my VPS are unable to handle the disc space. I guess there are much more people like me who runs full nodes on low-end servers.

m3

sr. member

Activity: 460

Merit: 250

i feel like we should listen to satoshi after all he is the founder.

funtotry

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 250

Ever wanted to run your own casino? PM me for info

I always get these transactions. Usually people attach message them to advertise. Its very cheap advertisement definitely, satoshi is a fraction of a cent, however they are really annoying and never confirm, messing up my wallet.

jeannemadrigal2

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

Thanks elux this thread is great. You can also go look at Gavins recent posts and I think you can see that he is not an ego maniac like some suggested, but actually a pretty levelheaded guy.

elux

legendary

Activity: 1458

Merit: 1006

Quote from: satoshi on August 11, 2010, 07:28:50 PM

It would be nice to keep the blk*.dat files small as long as we can.

The eventual solution will be to not care how big it gets.

But for now, while it's still small, it's nice to keep it small so new users can get going faster. When I eventually implement client-only mode, that won't matter much anymore.

There's more work to do on transaction fees. In the event of a flood, you would still be able to jump the queue and get your transactions into the next block by paying a 0.01 transaction fee. However, I haven't had time yet to add that option to the UI.

Scale or not, the test network will react in the same ways, but with much less wasted bandwidth and annoyance.

necroing ancient thread

Bolded Satoshi's view on SPV vs block[chain] size for emphasis.

Mike and Gavin are simply siding with Satoshi on the issue.

throughput

full member

Activity: 158

Merit: 100

Quote from: satoshi on August 11, 2010, 07:28:50 PM

It would be nice to keep the blk*.dat files small as long as we can.

The eventual solution will be to not care how big it gets.

But for now, while it's still small, it's nice to keep it small so new users can get going faster. When I eventually implement client-only mode, that won't matter much anymore.

There's more work to do on transaction fees. In the event of a flood, you would still be able to jump the queue and get your transactions into the next block by paying a 0.01 transaction fee. However, I haven't had time yet to add that option to the UI.

Scale or not, the test network will react in the same ways, but with much less wasted bandwidth and annoyance.

OK, I get it. Not sure for the other jerks Grin

though.

satoshi

founder

Activity: 364

Merit: 6472

It would be nice to keep the blk*.dat files small as long as we can.

The eventual solution will be to not care how big it gets.

But for now, while it's still small, it's nice to keep it small so new users can get going faster. When I eventually implement client-only mode, that won't matter much anymore.

There's more work to do on transaction fees. In the event of a flood, you would still be able to jump the queue and get your transactions into the next block by paying a 0.01 transaction fee. However, I haven't had time yet to add that option to the UI.

Scale or not, the test network will react in the same ways, but with much less wasted bandwidth and annoyance.

Topic: Flood attack 0.00000001 BC (Read 41015 times)