SatoshiDice And the root of all evil - page 2.

Quantus

legendary

Activity: 883

Merit: 1005

Quote from: zx9r on March 13, 2013, 12:12:57 PM

I think that the bitcoin system should be able to deal with a large number of transactions without collapsing. It is still at a very early stage. If right now it has problems because a one and only s.dice it will collapse in the near future when more people use it as payment platform.

Its already dealing with a shit load of transactions every hour. We need to cut those Transactions back to a manageable level and we can. If we shut down SD dice and others like it we could go for many years with out having to deal with this issue again.

Quantus

legendary

Activity: 883

Merit: 1005

In the coming years their will be more and more block spam on the Net work the way you fix it is to impose fees not lower them. A % based fee is better at any level then a flat rate of FREE. Right now we are moving towards a Free system to send money.

Quote from: ShireSilver on March 13, 2013, 12:07:22 PM

Quote from: Quantus on March 13, 2013, 11:40:37 AM

Quote from: ShireSilver on March 13, 2013, 10:30:17 AM

Quote from: Quantus on March 12, 2013, 10:35:03 PM

I don't understand why they (SD) can't bring all gambling in house the way MtGox dose with trading.

Because Satoshi Dice is doing it the right way, and Mt Gox is doing it the wrong way.

You should consider that requiring users to register is a dangerous centralization that inevitably leads to corruption. Bitcoin is a new phenomenon that requires new thinking, using the old paradigm doesn't make sense when the main point of bitcoin is to obsolete the old paradigm.

Your point is the equivalent of "I don't understand why bitcoin can't require named accounts the way Federal Reserve based banks do it."

One of the worst Straw man arguments ever. That or your trolling.

So you're saying you don't have a real response? Thought so.

You imply I want SD dice to use verified accounts I never said that. I said we need to help them bring their gambling system in house or pressure them to rise minim bets You don't have to use verified account to do that. You should be more concerned with the centralization of the mining community and the vulnerability that rises from that. Extortion, bribery and collusion.

greyhawk

hero member

Activity: 952

Merit: 1009

Maybe he means the voices. Lips sealed

Elwar

legendary

Activity: 3598

Merit: 2386

Viva Ut Vivas

Quote from: Quantus on March 12, 2013, 10:31:40 PM

Quote from: lucif on March 12, 2013, 10:29:54 PM

If only ONE fokin lottery can get network to hit its soft and/or hard limits, then this network is trash.

What will happen when 1000s like sdice come in?

We must

Quote from: Quantus on March 12, 2013, 10:48:19 PM

WE must not allow

Who is this "we"? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

zx9r

full member

Activity: 153

Merit: 100

I think that the bitcoin system should be able to deal with a large number of transactions without collapsing. It is still at a very early stage. If right now it has problems because a one and only s.dice it will collapse in the near future when more people use it as payment platform.

ShireSilver

sr. member

Activity: 382

Merit: 253

Quote from: Quantus on March 13, 2013, 11:40:37 AM

Quote from: ShireSilver on March 13, 2013, 10:30:17 AM

Quote from: Quantus on March 12, 2013, 10:35:03 PM

I don't understand why they (SD) can't bring all gambling in house the way MtGox dose with trading.

Because Satoshi Dice is doing it the right way, and Mt Gox is doing it the wrong way.

You should consider that requiring users to register is a dangerous centralization that inevitably leads to corruption. Bitcoin is a new phenomenon that requires new thinking, using the old paradigm doesn't make sense when the main point of bitcoin is to obsolete the old paradigm.

Your point is the equivalent of "I don't understand why bitcoin can't require named accounts the way Federal Reserve based banks do it."

One of the worst Straw man arguments ever. That or your trolling.

So you're saying you don't have a real response? Thought so.

Quantus

legendary

Activity: 883

Merit: 1005

Quote from: ShireSilver on March 13, 2013, 10:30:17 AM

Quote from: Quantus on March 12, 2013, 10:35:03 PM

I don't understand why they (SD) can't bring all gambling in house the way MtGox dose with trading.

Because Satoshi Dice is doing it the right way, and Mt Gox is doing it the wrong way.

You should consider that requiring users to register is a dangerous centralization that inevitably leads to corruption. Bitcoin is a new phenomenon that requires new thinking, using the old paradigm doesn't make sense when the main point of bitcoin is to obsolete the old paradigm.

Your point is the equivalent of "I don't understand why bitcoin can't require named accounts the way Federal Reserve based banks do it."

One of the worst Straw man arguments ever. That or your trolling.

ShireSilver

sr. member

Activity: 382

Merit: 253

Quote from: Quantus on March 12, 2013, 10:35:03 PM

I don't understand why they (SD) can't bring all gambling in house the way MtGox dose with trading.

Because Satoshi Dice is doing it the right way, and Mt Gox is doing it the wrong way.

You should consider that requiring users to register is a dangerous centralization that inevitably leads to corruption. Bitcoin is a new phenomenon that requires new thinking, using the old paradigm doesn't make sense when the main point of bitcoin is to obsolete the old paradigm.

Your point is the equivalent of "I don't understand why bitcoin can't require named accounts the way Federal Reserve based banks do it."

Raoul Duke

legendary

Activity: 1358

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Quantus on March 13, 2013, 12:06:55 AM

I'm pissed they moved my thread. Why they fuck did they hide it in Service discussion?

Because it's discussing a service? Roll Eyes

But you didn't really need me to tell you that, did you?

Quantus

legendary

Activity: 883

Merit: 1005

I'm pissed they moved my thread. Why they fuck did they hide it in Service discussion?

SRoulette

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 252

Quote from: Quantus on March 12, 2013, 11:24:21 PM

It is the responsibility of the Bitcoin mining community to find pools that fight for the Block chain not work against it.

we are wittiness's to a digital democracy in action.

One successful business's selfish actions have an impact on the rest of the democracy but obviously not enough for the majority to turn against it.
You need to remember that most people will also vote by putting their own self interests above others as their guide.

As a small casino operator myself I feel bitcoin is (in some ways) lucky to have a selfish business like satoshidice being so stubborn as they are.
Bitcoin has a long road ahead of it and as others say if we cant handle one noisy vendor then what happens when we finally get a malicious entity on the network that is not motivated by greed (as are all businesses) but by the destruction of the network.

We are already seeing the network adapt, the exclusion of satoshidice spammy transactions (we are also guilty of this to a lesser extent) and the raising of the blocksize limit.

Our little democracy is growing, new laws are being added and we are having some small teething issues along the way. if you dont like it you are free to attempt succession Grin

Quantus

legendary

Activity: 883

Merit: 1005

It is the responsibility of the Bitcoin mining community to find pools that fight for the Block chain not work against it.

Raoul Duke

legendary

Activity: 1358

Merit: 1002

Quote from: knightmb on March 12, 2013, 11:09:03 PM

There is no such thing as a technical solution to a social problem. Bitcoin is designed to allow this and thus there is no technical solution for it as long as the rules allow.

You're back!
Hard to stay away from $45 bitcoins, hein?

Sorry for the off-topic Tongue

Quantus

legendary

Activity: 883

Merit: 1005

We must call out the major mining pool, tell them to reject all micro transactions with out fees. We must pressure them to cap the headers at their current size.
We need to point our fingers at them and shame them for what they are doing. Bitcoin miners need to leave the major pools if they refuse this.

knightmb

sr. member

Activity: 308

Merit: 258

There is no such thing as a technical solution to a social problem. Bitcoin is designed to allow this and thus there is no technical solution for it as long as the rules allow.

Quantus

legendary

Activity: 883

Merit: 1005

Making the blocks bigger also pushes out full nodes that rely on low bandwidth connections. And it dose make fees smaller. It allows would be attackers to spam the net work with pointless transactions. WE must not allow block headers to grow or Fees to drop it will be the Death of bitcoin.

Ausversucht

newbie

Activity: 52

Merit: 0

Quote from: Quantus on March 12, 2013, 10:23:21 PM

The Fork on Monday night was not the result of a bug. It was Greed.

Its a serious issue. One that can not be fixed by cramming more transactions into each block. Every time we make Blocks bigger fees get lower. In the long run many many years
from today When block rewards are virtually nonexistent we will need those fees to pay the miners.

How long before some one spins off a clone of SatosihiDice? Their will me others. The block chain spam or SD spam as many call it will just grow.
The Block chain is growing to fast. And the actions of major pools in the last week have been abhorrent. It is not your Right to just pull numbers out of your ass and decree the size of the block header.

Shame on you all.

Um, pretty sure that making the blocks bigger just allows for more room to fit transactions allowing you to collect MORE fees. As long as more operators only accept transactions with a minimum fee, then we all win. I always include a fee with my tx either .01 or .005

Multiply those by 10000+ tx and you will see what you could be missing in a few years when the network really takes off. We are really just in out infancy.

Also even if you adjust the minimum fee somehow to account for the rise in bitcoin price, you will still be winning because more people will likely pay it and you will collect more.

Quantus

legendary

Activity: 883

Merit: 1005

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Quantus on March 12, 2013, 10:35:03 PM

I don't understand why they (SD) can't bring all gambling in house the way MtGox dose with trading.

Because they don't want to.

If you don't like S.DICE don't relay or confirm their transactions.

The major pools are now in control and they are doing the opposite they are binding over backwards to serv them.

Quantus

legendary

Activity: 883

Merit: 1005

I don't understand why they (SD) can't bring all gambling in house the way MtGox dose with trading.

mwag

newbie

Activity: 38

Merit: 0

Quote from: lucif on March 12, 2013, 10:29:54 PM

If only ONE fokin lottery can get network to hit its soft and/or hard limits, then this network is trash.

What will happen when 1000s like sdice come in?

And here, Satan himself joins the discussion. You are old and wise. Show us the way. Surely you know what to do!

Topic: SatoshiDice And the root of all evil - page 2. (Read 5498 times)