Topic: Miners: Time to deprioritise/filter address reuse! - page 3. (Read 51790 times)
You're an idiot, don't do this! - 109 (43.6%)
...
This isn't going to cause any harm to anyone, and it might cause some benefit.
...
It affects anyone who wants to use a single address - if they do, then the transactions to that address will be slowed down by it.This isn't going to cause any harm to anyone, and it might cause some benefit.
...
i.e. it slows down committing for anyone that use a single address for payment, if they receive more than one payment per block - yes that includes Satoshi Dice - but any site that uses that design.
Now, what is gained by it?
Enforced privacy coz people MUST have it?
Yet when you commit a payment with an amount greater than any incoming transaction you use to pay out, you immediately invalidate this argument. Completely.
I really don't understand why people must be FORCED to use this - i.e. get pools to enforce this rule.
Can someone answer why it MUST be done - and why the current system CAN'T be allowed to continue.
Why can't people have choice?
You CAN implement the option of accepting payments to choose to use a new address every time - so people who want that can have it.
But why are people trying to FORCE this as mandatory?
Seems like: "We know better, we will tell you what you should do and we want to force you to do it"
Sounds very religious to me ...
Not those green addresses. We have a new definition, courtesy of our new friends at the CoinValidation organisation, and it involves linking real world identities to Bitcoin users and put in a public database. The idea is to create regulatory legislation (in the US) that demands for businesses to only accept money from ID validated green addresses.
But this change does break those green addresses. Interesting attempt to deflect the issue though. And those green addresses not maintained by a central authority allow people to not have to wait anywhere from 2-60 minutes for confirmations.
If there's something better in the pipeline, that's fine but it really does break behaviors people are relying on.
Luke, I know we don't see eye-to-eye on things, but respectfully, I don't see any benefit to this proposal.
I'd say about the same thing, except I'd conclude by replacing "benefit" with "harm."
This isn't going to cause any harm to anyone, and it might cause some benefit.
For all the heat generated, where's the innocent victim its opponents can point at and cry "this person was harmed!" There is no such person.
It may or may not be a good idea.
However, what Luke has done seems to be the least intrusive measure possible to find out. Whether or not he has strong opinions against what he is trying to discourage, what he has actually done is to discourage it. . .slightly. By expressing mild disapproval of it. And suggesting that he might express slightly less mild disapproval of it in the future. In other words, a future intention to deprecate. . .maybe!
I can live with this.
ETA: Also that poll sucks. Sorry. Really, it needs an answer that amounts to "let's collect some data and see how it works." Because that's what I would have clicked, and it seems to be what you're actually doing. Good idea! But there should have been a way to approve of that.
Also, as much as black addresses are entirely unworkable, green addresses do actually provide a nice benefit.
Anyone who insists on being paid from a "green" address can start digging around the blockchain to try to find out how much BTC you're holding. Not such a benefit.
There's a blockchain based solution to providing a credible ID when making purchases in the works, designed by the Bitcoin main dev team. It's a far superior scheme to this green addresses nonsense.
You know that mtgox won't double-spend so you can immediately trust the payment. That's a green address.
Not those green addresses. We have a new definition, courtesy of our new friends at the CoinValidation organisation, and it involves linking real world identities to Bitcoin users and put in a public database. The idea is to create regulatory legislation (in the US) that demands for businesses to only accept money from ID validated green addresses.
Appears to be an unnecessary knee-jerk reaction for something that is not a genuine problem.
Luke, I know we don't see eye-to-eye on things, but respectfully, I don't see any benefit to this proposal.
I thought exactly the same thing when I first heard about it, in fact I also called it a "knee jerk reaction", but after carefully reading the posts, especially those from gmaxwell, I have come to the conclusion in my signature. If coins of different ancestry become different in value then Bitcoin is reduced from "money" to "collectible" just like coins of different grades have different values in the marketplace.Luke, I know we don't see eye-to-eye on things, but respectfully, I don't see any benefit to this proposal.
I, for one, would like Bitcion to develop as money, not collectibles.
Appears to be an unnecessary knee-jerk reaction for something that is not a genuine problem.
Luke, I know we don't see eye-to-eye on things, but respectfully, I don't see any benefit to this proposal.
EDIT: BurtW, and so you did, post #12. Guess that's why the term was on muh brain. Cheers.
Luke, I know we don't see eye-to-eye on things, but respectfully, I don't see any benefit to this proposal.
EDIT: BurtW, and so you did, post #12. Guess that's why the term was on muh brain. Cheers.
So you mean BTC is mainly adopted by people wants 100% privacy? On the contrary, it's possible that the majority haven't adopt BTC just because of the anonymity. Most of people heard of BTC but haven't convinced to use them because they think the government will not allow such things to exist. The main objective of BTC foundation is not to increase its anonymity, but to explain to the authority that it's not as anonymous as they think.
This isn't about anonymity.If the government wants to know who you are, they'll subpoena your landlord to tell them.
Are you saying the majority of people want the unknown to-be-rapist down the street to know their every purchase, telling him where you've been and what you buy?
They want the pedophile-to-be to know when and where they drop their children off at childcare?
I understand the argument you make here and agree with it. I also understand you have good intentions trying to force developers to respond. I disagree with removing choice from the user. Not every user desires or requires privacy. If it's a government address such as the FBI or a non-profit then they'll be able to have privacy too. In the case of the FBI they might want that privacy, in the case of the non-profit they likely don't want it, and people want and expect complete transparency from a non-profit.
So certain addresses in my opinion should be persistent addresses. If you want to discourage the use of persistent addresses then attach a fee to miners to allow specific addresses to be persistent if that fee is paid.
Also, as much as black addresses are entirely unworkable, green addresses do actually provide a nice benefit.
Anyone who insists on being paid from a "green" address can start digging around the blockchain to try to find out how much BTC you're holding. Not such a benefit.
There's a blockchain based solution to providing a credible ID when making purchases in the works, designed by the Bitcoin main dev team. It's a far superior scheme to this green addresses nonsense.
You know that mtgox won't double-spend so you can immediately trust the payment. That's a green address.
Also, as much as black addresses are entirely unworkable, green addresses do actually provide a nice benefit.
Anyone who insists on being paid from a "green" address can start digging around the blockchain to try to find out how much BTC you're holding. Not such a benefit.
There's a blockchain based solution to providing a credible ID when making purchases in the works, designed by the Bitcoin main dev team. It's a far superior scheme to this green addresses nonsense.
Also, as much as black addresses are entirely unworkable, green addresses do actually provide a nice benefit.
Miners have ALWAYS had the freedom to pick which txs they want to include in blocks. If you feel miners shouldn't have that freedom then you probably should have done more research before getting involved in Bitcoin.
[...]
If you have done so little research that this didn't occur to you, well I would recommend some critical thinking.
[...]
If you have done so little research that this didn't occur to you, well I would recommend some critical thinking.
I know that, I'm not sure why you feel the need to be condescending in every reply.
Does that also mean that people shouldn't debate the rules that miners use, for example in an attempt to persuade or dissuade other miners from adopting the same policies? Isn't that what this thread is for?
Miners have ALWAYS had the freedom to pick which txs they want to include in blocks. If you feel miners shouldn't have that freedom then you probably should have done more research before getting involved in Bitcoin.
Well the solution to this problem for now is clearly for the 50% of us who aren't blinded by ideology to keep our hashing power as far away from Eligius as possible.
What does 50% have to do with anything. This isn't a hard fork or change in core protocol. I agree as a miner you should select a pool who's views are aligned with your own. You "vote" with your hashing power however this patch can be used by anyone at anytime and requires no consensus.
EACH INDIVIDUAL miner have the freedom to prioritize tx as they see fit. That isn't going to change with 50% or 99.9%.
50% has to do with the current poll result... The sum of the 'this is unequivocally a bad idea' responses.
Miners have ALWAYS had the freedom to pick which txs they want to include in blocks. If you feel miners shouldn't have that freedom then you probably should have done more research before getting involved in Bitcoin.
Well the solution to this problem for now is clearly for the 50% of us who aren't blinded by ideology to keep our hashing power as far away from Eligius as possible.
What does 50% have to do with anything? This isn't a hard fork or change in core protocol, it doesn't need your or anyone's approval. Each INDIVIDUAL miner (or indirectly through the pool they choose) have the freedom to prioritize tx as they see fit. They always have and they always will. That isn't going to change with or without 50% support.
However I agree as a miner you should select a pool who's views are aligned with your own. Either you construct your own header and are in direct control of transaction selection, or you "vote" with your hashing power however this patch can be used by anyone at anytime and requires no consensus.
Miners have ALWAYS had the freedom to pick which txs they want to include in blocks. If you feel miners shouldn't have that freedom then you probably should have done more research before getting involved in Bitcoin.
Well the solution to this problem for now is clearly for the 50% of us who aren't blinded by ideology to keep our hashing power as far away from Eligius as possible. Don't get me wrong, I'm convinced not reusing addresses is the way to go, I just don't need Luke-Jr trying to force the extra cost on everyone.
Miners have ALWAYS had the freedom to pick which txs they want to include in blocks. If you feel miners shouldn't have that freedom then you probably should have done more research before getting involved in Bitcoin.
Tx selection will only grow more complex in the future. Some miners may simply sign deals with large merchants to provide a quality of service for their tx. VIP clients will have all tx to their addresses jump to the front of the line. I think that type of arrangement is only a matter of time.
Miners have the freedom to choose tx selection. Miners aren't obligated to give your tx priority. That has been the "rules of the game" since the genesis block. If you have done so little research that this didn't occur to you, well I would recommend some critical thinking.
Tx selection will only grow more complex in the future. Some miners may simply sign deals with large merchants to provide a quality of service for their tx. VIP clients will have all tx to their addresses jump to the front of the line. I think that type of arrangement is only a matter of time.
Miners have the freedom to choose tx selection. Miners aren't obligated to give your tx priority. That has been the "rules of the game" since the genesis block. If you have done so little research that this didn't occur to you, well I would recommend some critical thinking.
That is called freedom. Freedom doesn't mean people always doing what you WANT them to do, thats easy.
In fact it often means people doing something you disagree with, freedom of speech means someone having the freedom to say things you might find hurtful or offensive.
Yes freedom can be scary. Freedom can mean you are inconvenienced. Freedom can make you question if your choice is worth it.
So once again why are you so afraid of freedom?
In fact it often means people doing something you disagree with, freedom of speech means someone having the freedom to say things you might find hurtful or offensive.
Yes freedom can be scary. Freedom can mean you are inconvenienced. Freedom can make you question if your choice is worth it.
So once again why are you so afraid of freedom?
And I could turn every single one of those questions back at those favouring this patch.
The difference is that you are actively trying to stop me doing the things that you don't want me to do, that might inconvenience you. I'm not trying to stop you reusing addresses whenever you want. So which of us is trying to restrict freedom again?
It stinks of social engineering. If not reusing addresses is the only way bitcoin will survive there will be no need to pressure people into doing that.
That is short sighted thinking:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_externalizing
Umm. Who is externalizing what cost by leaving things alone.
Quote
Simply forcing suppliers and service providers to take on more responsibilities and cost is not a healthy externalization of cost.
So forcing busy charities/businesses to have sophisticated systems to accept payment as opposed to a QR code printed on paper is healthy how? I really don't follow your line of thinking.
It stinks of social engineering. If not reusing addresses is the only way bitcoin will survive there will be no need to pressure people into doing that.
That is short sighted thinking:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_externalizing
It stinks of social engineering. If not reusing addresses is the only way bitcoin will survive there will be no need to pressure people into doing that.
Jump to: