Topic: [OLD] Eligius: ASIC, no registration, no fee CPPSRB BTC + 105% PPS NMC, 877 # - page 144. (Read 458370 times)

Well looking at the bigwins bets, at some point they allowed much higher bets and I dont se why they wont allow that again considering ppl enjoy throwing money away. Here is a list of the bigwin big bets.

Details   2012-06-03 11:00:18   lessthan 6000   c6d4eec1   4ca2f368   16E6Lbm   CONFIRMED   100.00000000   WIN   1070.92083333   3213
Details   2012-06-02 20:01:08   lessthan 16000   ef9792c0   58971564   1H8yth1   CONFIRMED   80.00000000   WIN   321.52590000   13091
Details   2012-06-03 05:55:05   lessthan 24000   ca0a7568   7fac902f   1Dz3WA7   CONFIRMED   100.00000000   WIN   268.10483333   18133
Details   2012-05-23 01:01:53   lessthan 24000   24b7d746   93d9e744   1FK6aLb   CONFIRMED   100.00000000   WIN   268.10483333   18158
Details   2012-06-01 00:12:53   lessthan 24000   89c5c550   06764306   1Pf5VTb   CONFIRMED   76.80000000   WIN   205.90439600   1641
Details   2012-05-23 20:49:21   lessthan 12000   94fda443   e8a51611   1M5XaBu   CONFIRMED   26.00000000   WIN   139.28427333   10755
Details   2012-05-20 06:38:02   lessthan 32000   1b0c6565   b1046f77   1FECe7o   CONFIRMED   107.75060000   WIN   216.79801722   4266
Details   2012-05-04 17:16:52   lessthan 24000   4968982c   907ac27f   17A7Zq9   CONFIRMED   61.00000000   WIN   165.20833333   979
Details   2012-05-07 13:52:07   lessthan 24000   8f12d467   2563d180   1APj1tg   CONFIRMED   61.00000000   WIN   165.20833333   3259
Details   2012-05-17 01:24:08   lessthan 32000   92d6a8c1   a7198565   18wQDCk   CONFIRMED   100.35000000   WIN   203.46163200   26206

The max bet is only 5 BTC on SD right now (has been for a while).  And if you look at their stats, the vast majority of bets are under 0.10 BTC.  Bumping the fee to 0.01 would likely kill off most of SD's business (which right now is probably mostly made up of martingale bots).

Still, I'm starting to think Deepbit's decision to stick to the old fee structure may have been a good one.

Satoshi dice have 50-100BTC per flip bets, sure as hell they could manage fine with 0.01 BTC fees

Actually, the TX fee used to be much higher (0.01 per KB vs 0.0005).  It was reduced to 1/20020th it's original size after last summer's bubble.  At this point, txfees are almost meaningless because of that decision.  To process credit cards, you're looking at percentage fees, in addition to $0.05 to $0.30 per transaction, depending on volume and your system's ability to run the transactions in batches and the volume of transactions you process daily.  Right now, the txfees are pointless.  They don't even amount to a penny per TX in most cases.  That's why I actually agree with what Luke has done.

It is not SD's fault, they are following the rules that were changed because the developers were being pressured by the community last summer when TX fees were "becoming too big" because the price was $20-30 for a few weeks.  However, even at the peak value and 0.01 per KB, they were almost always cheaper than what would be charged by any credit card/payment processor.

If the fees were still 0.01, this wouldn't be a problem.  The fees would be adding enough to each block to make up for the higher risk of orphans.  Of course, it would also probably kill SatoshiDice because the fees would be a much larger portion of the bets.  Not that Bitcoin should be kept in this state for SatoshiDice.  I don't ever recall Bitcoin being marketed as a micropayment system.

And even if fees were bumped back up to 0.01, this doesn't mean everybody is suddenly paying high fees.  The network is designed to give priority to large transfers of highly confirmed coins.  The only people that would feel the change are those sending coins just after receiving them, or sending extremely small amounts of coins [or paying with a "bag of pennies" in change].

Unless the tx fee is so high which could compensate the orphans, miner will start to reject tx like what Eligius doing. Eligius is simply putting the burden on other miners and increase their orphan rate.

Although I agree SD is abusing the network, a successful BTC network should be able to handle 1000x of current volume. If SD is a stress test, the network is failed. It means the network cannot grow further.

Without changing the current infrastructure, there are 3 options: 1. Miners will allow only a limited number of tx in a block, but this may leave some tx never confirmed and BTC is dead; 2. Increase the tx fee by 10x or even 100x; 3. A revised tx fee formula to punish people using coins with <3 confirmation.

All these solutions, however, would be short-term. If more people use BTC (which most of us want to see), the same problem will emerge again. If this could not be solved, this will be a major bottleneck of the whole system.

Bad luck alone cannot explain the results of late. It's statistically absurd, reminds me of the Dilbert comic about the random number generator always saying 7,7,7,7,7...

My guess is this is not true. As many valid blocks get mined as planned. We get orphans in addition, because we are not informed about some valid blocks fast enough. Without the orphans less hashing power would be wasted, the difficulty would be higher, and exactly the same amount of blocks would be mined in total.

This assumes all pools and miners have the same problem.

Yeah. I still think this is a problem. Are the developers acknowledging this or not ?

This is causing more orphans and more stales for everyone mining

Oh, I wouldn't quite agree with this statement.
It does still work - just causing an incredible increase of the number of orphaned blocks.
Sort of a reward deprecation from the 50 BTC to.. something less, which was not planned in the initial design

Yeah. After thinking about it, it seems that SatoshiDice actually proves Satoshi failed with his ideas as BTC cannot possibly scale.

But the mining income dropping is not fun

Personally, I am not saying that this is the reason.
I'm only saying that from the data I got the number of orphaned blocks mined out by Eligius went up from ~1% in the past months to over 12% in June.
Why - it's not up to me to figure it out.

Are you guys basically saying that because of evorhees and his shitty gambling service all miners are getting 10% less income for some strange reason ?

Screw SatoshiDice ! Someone better stop DDOSing the damn pools and start DDOSing the service ! ( I don't condone DDOS but I need my damn INCOME SatoshiVice )

Yeap. Now I understand why the difficulty is going up so slowly, despite of all the recent FPGA investments all around the world...

Jeez, effectively in June alone all miners would be -12.7% gauranteed on expected returns. That is definitely good enough to point to recent bloating of blockchain thats affecting other pools aswell.

If all the mined blocks are there - then you must be right like hell.
http://pastebin.com/mb14R9nR

Eligius-Ra's bitcoind in theory contains that data, but I'm not aware of any way to get it. If the coinbaser completed on the new block (which it almost always should) there should be a file in the JSON API directory. But even with the high orphanage rate we've been getting, Eligius doesn't have enough orphans to be statistically significant.

Try looking through http://eligius.st/~luke-jr/raw/7/blocks/

So are you saying that Eligius doesn't have a list of all the blocks (or their hashes) we mined in the pool, regardless of them getting orphaned or not?
It's kind of hard to believe... it sounds like Bitcoinica backups being stored in the same cloud as the server itself...

Anyway, if you do have such a list, then please just publish it and I promise to draw a graph - checking which of them got orphaned and how the percentage has changed in time.
Only then we can see if something really got screwed up in the network - or is it only a bad luck. Only numbers don't lie

Dice is abusing the network, but it isn't the root of the problem; the real problem is that Satoshi's design aimed at making the actual transaction processing have near zero cost has failed, and all the assumptions built on that premise collapse.

Bad luck is a normal part of mining, and almost certainly has its role at Eligius recently; but it's also certain that isn't the only thing going on. I did indeed check to be sure nobody was abusing non-standard transactions.

There's no way to get enough orphan data for good statistics. Just reading through the ones blockchain.info has seen, though, suggests a clear bias toward smaller blocks IMO.

Is this something that would affect all pools or is this something that could be targeted at specific pools by timing?

At p2Pool, average orphaned blocks per day increased when average confirmation time started to increase. It's a very clear correlation. I haven't looked at other pools yet, though.

Interestingly there's not such a clear correlation between average Tx per block and the increase in orphans produced.