Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 124.

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Frappuccino_doc's car insurance is about to go up.

Because the Gavinmobile just got wr3cked, again. Tongue

Quote

Transaction Fee Market Develops Amid Surge in Transaction Volume
http://qntra.net/2015/07/transaction-fee-market-develops-amid-surge-in-transaction-volume/

The illusion that every coffee might end up on the blockchain has faded [this] week to reveal the glory of a robust, attack and censorship resistant settlement network of actual value.

EDIT: Great minds think alike:

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: msin on July 10, 2015, 08:53:54 PM

The recent surge in Backpage BTC use proves how spot on Justus was with his Black Market blog post. Its obvious that BTC will change how we do commerce, no the other way around.

Agreed. Justus hit it out of the park with that one.

Sigworthy quotes therein:

Quote

Every time a new startup launches, or a new software project announces, ask one question: “Does this new thing improve the black market?”

If the answer to this question is “no”, then the thing is useless.

Anyone who isn’t actively working to expand and empower the informal economy is wasting their time.

rpietila

donator

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1036

The speculation about "when it starts to hurt the users if fee is raised?" is as old as Bitcoin itself.

Personally I belong to the "not easily" camp. Of course low fee is better than high, but 0.001 would never hurt. 0.01 would be a nuisance and direct smaller amounts transfers to XMR but slowly. 0.1 is still less than international wire transfer fee, and I'd continue using BTC for large/needed transactions only. BTC1 per transfer is a lot, so I would only use it for major transfers.

Percentagewise, <0.1% of the value is insignificant, >1% is hefty.

NewLiberty

legendary

Activity: 1204

Merit: 1002

Gresham's Lawyer

Quote from: Erdogan on July 10, 2015, 08:32:54 PM

Quote from: justusranvier on July 10, 2015, 05:06:52 PM

The only reason we have to talk about spam is because the resource allocation of network bandwidth and storage isn't handled very well.

Nobody is ever going to agree on what is or is not spam, so a more productive solution is to make whatever changes to the network are needed to ensure that everybody pays for what they use.

Once that condition is achieved, it doesn't matter how many resources people use.

Edit: Agree, and...
Someone just out of nowhere defined what is spam, and entered it into the code. But we have seen earlier, that not all miners care about that. It is really impossible to say, some people need small amounts. It is best that there is no agreement. Again, trust the market, don't fight it. It is natural, it comes from the human in each individual.

Currently we have a sort of default fee, and the only resource counted is TX size. The spam consumes also a different resource, the UXTO data set.
To charge for that resource, it might take some sort of incremental fee increase for outputs > inputs?

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Erdogan on July 10, 2015, 08:37:08 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on July 10, 2015, 05:36:03 PM

Quote from: Odalv on July 10, 2015, 04:54:16 PM

Quote from: Erdogan on July 10, 2015, 04:10:43 PM

The human aspect. What will happen (any blocksize really) if a powerful opponent fills the queue with spam transactions with high fee, like 0.01 BTC or even higher? A few million dollars could suffocate the functioning of bitcoin for months. My guess: As such situation is not advantageous for the miners despite the good fee money, they would find the spam transactions using heuristics, then fill blocks say half with spam transaction to take the good money, and half with normal transactions. The attack would be costly for the attacker, reduce the payment functionality to a degree, otherwise bitcoin would continue as always.

It will cost 40 BTC per block, 240 BTC per hour, 5 760 BTC/day, 40 320/week, 161 280/month and 1 935 360/year. ... I'll hold or just pay 0.0101 per transaction :-)

but can't you see that w/o a limit Bitcoin actually could inflict huge economic losses on an attacker that keeps trying or goes too far. there's a dark, unknown ceiling there for him that could inflict serious losses. i for one would love to see that happen as it would strengthen miners greatly as well as Bitcoin generally. this is what we've always wanted for miners; fee income security to replace block rewards. no amount of block heuristics, rules, limits, or sizes can predict the appropriate amount of "regulation" by core dev. they need to open up the limit and let free mkt forces run. b/c Bitcoin is open and honest, it will crush anyone wanting to damage it thru nefarious means.

You are right, but there will always be a limit to capacity somewhere. Even when the physical limit is approched, bitcoin payments will continue to function, due to the above.

yes, we agree. and nobody knows where that physical limit exists. but i do know, in a round about way; it is when the miner starts losing money. and that might be when his orphan rate starts going up or his mempool starts expanding to the point that his users get disrupted. that's where he will back off on making large blocks or will raise his minfee to squelch the bloat of his mempool.

msin

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1004

The recent surge in Backpage BTC use proves how spot on Justus was with his Black Market blog post. Its obvious that BTC will change how we do commerce, no the other way around.

Erdogan

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1005

Quote from: Odalv on July 10, 2015, 06:00:55 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on July 10, 2015, 05:54:05 PM

Are you deaf? All they have to do is employ minfee.

Lol, this is how it is working now. If you want to ~~do transaction~~ add you transaction into block then increase fee.

Edit:
I do not understand why do we need to increase block size if we want to "employ minfee".
Let's try to "employ minfee" and if they raise too high then we will increase block size to reduce them.

My gawd, that one is easy: We want a lot transactional capacity, to make bitcoin useful for many many people. It will clearly work for a few people with 1 MB, proof: it works now, but we want ~~many~~ ~~many-many~~ many many many.

Erdogan

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1005

Quote from: cypherdoc on July 10, 2015, 05:36:03 PM

Quote from: Odalv on July 10, 2015, 04:54:16 PM

Quote from: Erdogan on July 10, 2015, 04:10:43 PM

The human aspect. What will happen (any blocksize really) if a powerful opponent fills the queue with spam transactions with high fee, like 0.01 BTC or even higher? A few million dollars could suffocate the functioning of bitcoin for months. My guess: As such situation is not advantageous for the miners despite the good fee money, they would find the spam transactions using heuristics, then fill blocks say half with spam transaction to take the good money, and half with normal transactions. The attack would be costly for the attacker, reduce the payment functionality to a degree, otherwise bitcoin would continue as always.

It will cost 40 BTC per block, 240 BTC per hour, 5 760 BTC/day, 40 320/week, 161 280/month and 1 935 360/year. ... I'll hold or just pay 0.0101 per transaction :-)

but can't you see that w/o a limit Bitcoin actually could inflict huge economic losses on an attacker that keeps trying or goes too far. there's a dark, unknown ceiling there for him that could inflict serious losses. i for one would love to see that happen as it would strengthen miners greatly as well as Bitcoin generally. this is what we've always wanted for miners; fee income security to replace block rewards. no amount of block heuristics, rules, limits, or sizes can predict the appropriate amount of "regulation" by core dev. they need to open up the limit and let free mkt forces run. b/c Bitcoin is open and honest, it will crush anyone wanting to damage it thru nefarious means.

You are right, but there will always be a limit to capacity somewhere. Even when the physical limit is approched, bitcoin payments will continue to function, due to the above.

Erdogan

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1005

Quote from: justusranvier on July 10, 2015, 05:06:52 PM

The only reason we have to talk about spam is because the resource allocation of network bandwidth and storage isn't handled very well.

Nobody is ever going to agree on what is or is not spam, so a more productive solution is to make whatever changes to the network are needed to ensure that everybody pays for what they use.

Once that condition is achieved, it doesn't matter how many resources people use.

Edit: Agree, and...
Someone just out of nowhere defined what is spam, and entered it into the code. But we have seen earlier, that not all miners care about that. It is really impossible to say, some people need small amounts. It is best that there is no agreement. Again, trust the market, don't fight it. It is natural, it comes from the human in each individual.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Odalv on July 10, 2015, 06:00:55 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on July 10, 2015, 05:54:05 PM

Are you deaf? All they have to do is employ minfee.

Lol, this is how it is working now. If you want to ~~do transaction~~ add you transaction into block then increase fee.

Edit:
I do not understand why do we need to increase block size if we want to "employ minfee".
Let's try to "employ minfee" and if they raise too high then we will increase block size to reduce them.

what i'm saying is that even with no limit the pool operators have the ability to pick and choose what tx's go into blocks thus limiting size and they can adjust the minfee that determines the size of their mempools. all this is based on their own internal proprietary data and analysis of the network along with the feedback they get from user fees. this should allow them to protect themselves and the network which they have every reason to want to protect since it is their source of profitability and they're not about to screw it up for some spammer.

NewLiberty

legendary

Activity: 1204

Merit: 1002

Gresham's Lawyer

Quote from: Odalv on July 10, 2015, 04:54:16 PM

Quote from: Erdogan on July 10, 2015, 04:10:43 PM

The human aspect. What will happen (any blocksize really) if a powerful opponent fills the queue with spam transactions with high fee, like 0.01 BTC or even higher? A few million dollars could suffocate the functioning of bitcoin for months. My guess: As such situation is not advantageous for the miners despite the good fee money, they would find the spam transactions using heuristics, then fill blocks say half with spam transaction to take the good money, and half with normal transactions. The attack would be costly for the attacker, reduce the payment functionality to a degree, otherwise bitcoin would continue as always.

It will cost 40 BTC per block, 240 BTC per hour, 5 760 BTC/day, 40 320/week, 161 280/month and 1 935 360/year. ... I'll hold or just pay 0.0101 per transaction :-)

When 1/7th of all bitcoin is being bought at market and redistributed to miners each year, there is going to be some interesting price action.
They attacker is going to have to print a lot of money to keep up with this.

Odalv

legendary

Activity: 1414

Merit: 1000

Quote from: cypherdoc on July 10, 2015, 05:54:05 PM

Are you deaf? All they have to do is employ minfee.

Lol, this is how it is working now. If you want to ~~do transaction~~ add you transaction into block then increase fee.

Edit:
I do not understand why do we need to increase block size if we want to "employ minfee".
Let's try to "employ minfee" and if they raise too high then we will increase block size to reduce them.

Odalv

legendary

Activity: 1414

Merit: 1000

Providing services for free(or dumping price) is only good for destroying concurrence. I'm not sure we want to destroy others miners and build monopoly.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Odalv on July 10, 2015, 05:41:20 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on July 10, 2015, 05:36:03 PM

Quote from: Odalv on July 10, 2015, 04:54:16 PM

Quote from: Erdogan on July 10, 2015, 04:10:43 PM

The human aspect. What will happen (any blocksize really) if a powerful opponent fills the queue with spam transactions with high fee, like 0.01 BTC or even higher? A few million dollars could suffocate the functioning of bitcoin for months. My guess: As such situation is not advantageous for the miners despite the good fee money, they would find the spam transactions using heuristics, then fill blocks say half with spam transaction to take the good money, and half with normal transactions. The attack would be costly for the attacker, reduce the payment functionality to a degree, otherwise bitcoin would continue as always.

It will cost 40 BTC per block, 240 BTC per hour, 5 760 BTC/day, 40 320/week, 161 280/month and 1 935 360/year. ... I'll hold or just pay 0.0101 per transaction :-)

but can't you see that w/o a limit Bitcoin actually could inflict huge economic losses on an attacker that keeps trying or goes too far. there's a dark, unknown path there for him that could inflict serious losses. i for one would love to see that happen as it would strengthen miners greatly as well as Bitcoin generally. this is what we've always wanted for miners; fee income security to replace block rewards. no amount of block heuristics, rules, limits, or sizes can predict the appropriate amount of "regulation" by core dev. they need to open up the limit and let free mkt forces run. b/c Bitcoin is open and honest, it will crush anyone wanting to damage it thru nefarious means.

No one will pay you 0.01 BTC per transaction if they can pay you NOTHING. People are not idiots. They will flood you with useless transactions for free.

Edit:
Believe me. If it is 1 MB, 10 MB, 100 MB or 10,000 MB ... once it is free they will eat you.

Are you deaf? All they have to do is employ minfee.

Odalv

legendary

Activity: 1414

Merit: 1000

Quote from: cypherdoc on July 10, 2015, 05:36:03 PM

Quote from: Odalv on July 10, 2015, 04:54:16 PM

Quote from: Erdogan on July 10, 2015, 04:10:43 PM

The human aspect. What will happen (any blocksize really) if a powerful opponent fills the queue with spam transactions with high fee, like 0.01 BTC or even higher? A few million dollars could suffocate the functioning of bitcoin for months. My guess: As such situation is not advantageous for the miners despite the good fee money, they would find the spam transactions using heuristics, then fill blocks say half with spam transaction to take the good money, and half with normal transactions. The attack would be costly for the attacker, reduce the payment functionality to a degree, otherwise bitcoin would continue as always.

It will cost 40 BTC per block, 240 BTC per hour, 5 760 BTC/day, 40 320/week, 161 280/month and 1 935 360/year. ... I'll hold or just pay 0.0101 per transaction :-)

but can't you see that w/o a limit Bitcoin actually could inflict huge economic losses on an attacker that keeps trying or goes too far. there's a dark, unknown path there for him that could inflict serious losses. i for one would love to see that happen as it would strengthen miners greatly as well as Bitcoin generally. this is what we've always wanted for miners; fee income security to replace block rewards. no amount of block heuristics, rules, limits, or sizes can predict the appropriate amount of "regulation" by core dev. they need to open up the limit and let free mkt forces run. b/c Bitcoin is open and honest, it will crush anyone wanting to damage it thru nefarious means.

No one will pay you 0.01 BTC per transaction if they can pay you NOTHING. People are not idiots. They will flood you with useless transactions for free.

Edit:
Believe me. If it is 1 MB, 10 MB, 100 MB or 10,000 MB ... once it is free they will eat you.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: inca on July 10, 2015, 04:55:04 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on July 10, 2015, 04:38:58 PM

Quote from: Erdogan on July 10, 2015, 04:10:43 PM

The human aspect. What will happen (any blocksize really) if a powerful opponent fills the queue with spam transactions with high fee, like 0.01 BTC or even higher? A few million dollars could suffocate the functioning of bitcoin for months. My guess: As such situation is not advantageous for the miners despite the good fee money, they would find the spam transactions using heuristics, then fill blocks say half with spam transaction to take the good money, and half with normal transactions. The attack would be costly for the attacker, reduce the payment functionality to a degree, otherwise bitcoin would continue as always.

i was pondering this the other day. the best way to handle it? no limit. let the miners chew through high fees like that. is it even spam at that point? who cares? those would be tremendous profit to miners and strengthen and drive the hashrate even higher securing Bitcoin even tighter. which ultimately is the last thing the spammer wants which would eventually cause them to conclude it wasn't worth it. and then stop.

If bitcoin ceases to have utility due to network disruption then it will also rapidly lose it's exchange value. That is not in the interest of miners.

why would miners ever let disruption happen when they have the power to react by trimming down the sizes of the blocks they produce while in tandem being able to adjust minfee?

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Odalv on July 10, 2015, 04:54:16 PM

Quote from: Erdogan on July 10, 2015, 04:10:43 PM

The human aspect. What will happen (any blocksize really) if a powerful opponent fills the queue with spam transactions with high fee, like 0.01 BTC or even higher? A few million dollars could suffocate the functioning of bitcoin for months. My guess: As such situation is not advantageous for the miners despite the good fee money, they would find the spam transactions using heuristics, then fill blocks say half with spam transaction to take the good money, and half with normal transactions. The attack would be costly for the attacker, reduce the payment functionality to a degree, otherwise bitcoin would continue as always.

It will cost 40 BTC per block, 240 BTC per hour, 5 760 BTC/day, 40 320/week, 161 280/month and 1 935 360/year. ... I'll hold or just pay 0.0101 per transaction :-)

but can't you see that w/o a limit Bitcoin actually could inflict huge economic losses on an attacker that keeps trying or goes too far. there's a dark, unknown ceiling there for him that could inflict serious losses. i for one would love to see that happen as it would strengthen miners greatly as well as Bitcoin generally. this is what we've always wanted for miners; fee income security to replace block rewards. no amount of block heuristics, rules, limits, or sizes can predict the appropriate amount of "regulation" by core dev. they need to open up the limit and let free mkt forces run. b/c Bitcoin is open and honest, it will crush anyone wanting to damage it thru nefarious means.

Odalv

legendary

Activity: 1414

Merit: 1000

Quote from: sidhujag on July 10, 2015, 03:12:36 PM

if we are doing a hardfork anyway would lightening transactions help alleviate some of the spam attacks by creating instant transactions through locktime/multisig? Thus those that are attacked because they cant get their tx through for days can use lightening tx?

Using LN after opening payment channel you can make "a lot of" transactions ( 10, 100, 1000, 10000 ) for free. You will pay fee when you close this channel. So it is not a problem for anybody to pay $10(or even $100) per BITCOIN transaction and make 10,000 LN transactions. It will cost you $0.01 per transaction.

sidhujag

legendary

Activity: 2044

Merit: 1005

Quote from: sickpig on July 10, 2015, 04:23:17 PM

Quote from: sidhujag on July 10, 2015, 03:12:36 PM

if we are doing a hardfork anyway would lightening transactions help alleviate some of the spam attacks by creating instant transactions through locktime/multisig? Thus those that are attacked because they cant get their tx through for days can use lightening tx?

LN would be opt- in I suppose, so if an attacker want to hit the block chain directly there's no way to block him, the Bitcoin network is open afterall. You could put in place mechanisms/incentives to dissuade those attacks, but they have to be at the protocol level I think (increase the dust fee threshold, remove tx priority based on coinbase age, ...).

If the attack was to dissuade users from using it because of the confirmation time of their tx's then wouldn't increasing the confirmation of their spend be enough to limit these type of attacks?

justusranvier

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1013

The only reason we have to talk about spam is because the resource allocation of network bandwidth and storage isn't handled very well.

Nobody is ever going to agree on what is or is not spam, so a more productive solution is to make whatever changes to the network are needed to ensure that everybody pays for what they use.

Once that condition is achieved, it doesn't matter how many resources people use.

Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 124. (Read 2032248 times)