Topic: Huge increase in satoshidice spam over the past day - page 5. (Read 8855 times)

I agree.  The market is made up of suppliers (miners) and consumers (tx creators).   No reason to complain.   If you don't like their tx spam require higher fees.  If enough miners do it then their business model will need to change.

The current situation is like having an all you can eat buffet and complaining people are going back for seconds.

I think the point is a free market is made up of both parties.  If SD is free to spam the market then DB is free to ignore those txs.  One can be wrong without the other one being wrong.  Personally I think neither are.

Sorry, but that's the impression I got because you also called them stupid and braindead.

From the quote below it's seems they are also suffering from the same issue you mentioned,
if "use transactions in a more conservative way" means avoiding multisend.
They are a young service and hopefully they will work this out.

SatoshiDice is the free market at work also. They chose to use the blockchain to make a game following the Bitcoin protocol and paying fees for each and every transaction they send. What was your point again?

And, no, I'm not happy that I'll probably have to take out my bitcoin client from my main laptop and put it in it's own dedicated machine, but what must be done, must be done.
I will not trust you or anyone else to run a "trusted node".

+1.  SD could even partner with DeepBit sending them all their tx and paying a monthly fee for priority service.   The market is wide open.  The days of every pool accepting every tx on every block is likely coming to an end but honestly I find it interesting.

My opinions about this so far:

- SatoshiDice is legitimate. It may not try its hardest to make the most efficient transactions, but you will always have clients who aren't perfect. SD just does what might happen in 2-3 years anyway, but by lots of different users. SD can use the system only within the given limits; if it would do something wrong, transactions would get rejected. Basically it boils down to the underlying protocol restrictions: spammers for example are really hated, but they operate fine within the SMTP-RFC.

- Someone mentioned "trusted nodes": that's what SolidCoin advertised so heavily. And what failed. Giving control to few nodes might blow everything up.

- Restricting the heavy users won't help either. That's similar to the ISP who advertises with "unlimited downloads" but later throttles you when you download >1GB/month.

What about changing the way the blockchain is stored? Instead of having everybody store the full chain, they could store only 1-2% of it. 50-100 users then would have the entire chain, and with tens of thousands of active users, there would still be hundreds of sources for each block.

Clients could join a swarm when connecting which sort of represents the entire chain. Although clients would only store fractions of it, the entire blockchain is always available. Pretty much like a Bittorrent swarm is still fully functional as long as every single block is at least on one seeder's machine. You'd only need a small index file (think of blockchain.torrent) which handles the checksums of blocks (note that I'm not talking about bitcoin-blocks, but data-blocks, eg 10MB chunks). Add an option to let users decide how many % they want to store and voila, someone can decide to provide a full copy.

That's the free market at work.  Deepbit can choose to confirm or not confirm whatever transactions it likes.  If you need your transactions to go through quickly, then send it with a fee.  If you are just trying to bring awareness to the issue, then that's probably a good thing - knowledge helps people make better decisions.

More than complainting about SatoshiDice people should be complainting about the biggest pool not using sendmany and only processing around 100 transactions each block, sometimes even less, which I wouldn't be too surprised if they are comprised mostly of it's own transactions to pay miners, even when there are thousands of transactions on the memory pool.

If its done right and uses multisend, it would be a perfectly manageable load on the network.

So what's going to happen when BitInstant gets rapid bitcoin->cash conversion working and somebody gets the idea of making a mobile frontend to SatoshiDice that acts as a lightweight wallet and interface to BitInstant behind the scenes? How would something like that affect the Bitcoin network if it became popular?

Stop.  Thats not what I am suggesting, nor is this something that is being extensively discussed, I started this thread to see what the community would say in response. 
The goal is not to kill anyone or prevent them from using bitcoin for their use-case.  Read the thread please.

SatoshiDice seems to be a great way for core devs to get a taste of what it's like to handle a volume like this when bitcoin network starts to scale up and think of the solutions in advance.

And what is the solution they came up with? Kill the volume maker!
Doesn't sound good to me...

EXCELENT post etotheipi! At least there is some self-criticism in the community!

This is what I've been saying in so many posts: we are not prepared.

If just one single entity made such a mess, then think about 10 more satoshidices beginning to operate tomorrow.

That's why I designed MAVEPAY. I'n not saying that MAVEPAY is the only solution, but people should start accepting there is a scalability problem.

Exactly. What's that Satoshi quote? That governments are good at cutting off the heads of things like Napster? Well... how many trusted nodes are we talking about, who's going to protect their heads, and how do I apply to be a trusted node so that I can mess with the blockchain later on?

You can't verify against part of the chain.  You can say "this transaction's signature is invalid" but you can't say "this transaction's input doesnt exist".  Also, even if you have a few full nodes to check for this case, they cant prove it unless they send the full chain...

You are the one who insists it be configurable as to how much you forward (and I, mostly, agree with you).  You cant have it both ways or you end up punishing everyone and dropping connections.

As stated above, punishing high-traffic addresses by no means will remove the potential for the problem to occur.  The goal is really because people who do use one address usually dont care about confirmation times, so they can gladly still use them and some might.  Really its to make people think twice before designing their site in an entirely braindead way.

Doing so via download limits removes the possibility of users using Bitcoin for some things that may be very desirable.  Forcing fees before forwarding transactions that we otherwise wouldnt forward at all allows those transactions to exist.

a) they arent making a legitimate use.  Arguing that it works under the current rules is not a reason to not change the rules to make it not possible.
b) they aren't paying for it.  Paying miners does not help or help the high load it inflicts on end-users.

I shall not be paying for your silence

Why are you all so eager to get the network comprised of only "trusted nodes"(trusted by whom?) and "lightweight clients"?

Way to kill decentralization, IMO.

The idea is to avoid the need for full nodes: I want a 1 tier network.

After re-reading the scalability wiki it seems you could split the block up in to a list of hashes.

This ALSO means you should be able to document an invalid tx with just a few hashes sent along with your report.

So...SPV clients after the Bloom filter change...