Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 135. (Read 2032248 times)

Miners can choose what to include in the blocks they build.


OK. I'm not sure anyone suggested otherwise.

Miners can choose what to include in the blocks they build.


OK. I'm not sure anyone suggested otherwise.

I wish that Pierre Rochard would stop pretending to be a proponent of Austrian school of economics and would openly come out as a Keynsian/interventionist. It would be a lot more honest.

I think you have to multiply the cost with number of full nodes.

So the fix is to happily write these 80k spam transactions into the permanent ledger that we (full nodes) have to keep a copy of forever?

I think you have to multiply the cost with number of full nodes.

Quoting Rochard is the worst thing you could do besides flapping your own lips.

This is an order-of-magnitude estimate, but I think it's pretty convincing that it's both more expensive for the spammer and less expensive for a node/miner to store the spam than to reject it.  When the spam is rejected, it can be "re-spammed" without the attacker losing the TX fees.  Once the spam is written, however, the attacker needs more funds to perform a new attack.   

If your calculation is right then using 1 mb block he has to pay $10 million per year.  (and $100M if we rise fee to $0.6)

July 07, 2015, 10:30:33 PM
   
Weekly Update #150

    With the recent transaction volume on bitcoin network, I would like to discuss the transaction fee policy of peercoin/primecoin. I have always felt that the transaction fee design of bitcoin is overly complex, so peercoin/primecoin simplified it quite a bit, so users could have easier understanding of the policy. However, the deeper issue with bitcoin's technology is that, due to the nature of the decentralization technology, it's inherently a rather expensive settlement network. This means it's more suitable to act as a backbone network for financial systems, rather than to compete with centralized payment networks on volume and cost. This isn't obvious when bitcoin userbase is still limited, but the situation will get more and more obvious as its popularity grows.
    Originally bitcoin's transaction fee was defaulted to 0.01BTC. In fact I think this original default value was quite good, it beats having an overly complicated system in my opinion. Think about it, at current valuation it's still only one tenth the cost of bank wire networks. To prematurely increase the scale of the network, to compete against networks such as paypal or credit cards, would cause a significant loss of decentralization which by the way is what bitcoin technology and philosophy is all about. It appears that bitcoin developers are not guarding the fundamental principles with enough vigilance.
    In such spirit both peercoin/primecoin set default transaction fee to a required 0.01 coin per KB of data, in a simplified and effective fee policy from old bitcoin. The situation in bitcoin is closedly watched, the current fee policy in peercoin/primecoin likely would remain in place when upgrading to latest bitcoin codebase in the future.

So the fix is to happily write these 80k spam transactions into the permanent ledger that we (full nodes) have to keep a copy of forever?

No, the damage to the user base in that scenario will kill user growth which is the one thing that will cause value to square over time.

#Chinameltdown  The end of Chinese false economic prosperity (Austrian perspective)

#EconomicCrisisIsOver  US Mint Runs Out Of Silver On Same Day Price Of Silver Plunges To 2015 Lows


The 'spam issue' in Bitcoin will never be fixed (as you define it) because demand for space in the Mother of all Blockchains will always exceed supply.

Soon, wallets will support dynamic intelli-fees and fancy RBF whatnot.

In the mean time, pay 25 cents or a dollar for higher verification priority if you don't want your tx stuck.

If that's too much money for some broke cheapskates, fuck'em.  They aren't bringing "economic activity" (beyond subsidized freeloading) to Bitcoin in the first place.

If your calculation is right then using 1 mb block he has to pay $10 million per year.  (and $100M if we rise fee to $0.6)

worse for the attacker who would be paying 8 x in fees. miners can upgrade there CPU's if they are having problems collecting the fees.

Your missing the point that the spammer wouldn't even try it at that cost.

Oh, touchy touchy!  You really don't like it when I use facts, logic, and humor to highlight the contradictions and unsupported assertions in your worldview.  

How precisely does increasing the minimum fee from ~2 to ~5 cents "damage to the user experience?"

Can you explain that as easily as I can explain how undercharging for use of an incredibly valuable service, which consumes ~1.5 days worth of an avg US home's electricity, damages the long term signalling/incentive structures of the system?

Did he calculate how much will cost memory to keep this spam ?

someone did a calculation:

For example, with 100mb blocks, forcing average transaction fees up to only $0.06 over the course of a year would genuinely cost an attacker over $1billion.