Topic: Should the bitcoin community ban the Satoshi Dice filter patch? - page 3. (Read 14715 times)

So wait, the Psy theory is the following:
Major bug in network. Don't actually fix it, simply expect the company taking advantage of it to stop taking advantage of it out of the kindness of their hearts. Then, proceed to exercise monumental amounts of naivety by assuming that no other website will come along and start to do the same exact thing. When they do, instead of fixing the bug, simply come on bitcointalk.org and whine and whine about it instead of fixing the bug. The (by then 100+) websites doing the exact same thing should simply stop doing it out of the kindness of their hearts. Rinse repeat. Never actually solve problem, just expect that it will solve itself if I whine about it enough. Don't fix flaws, just expect people not to aBTCuse them.

Psy, ...wtf? I can't even begin to wrap my mind around that.

That's like the Canadian people expecting the operators of the Exxon-Valdez vessel to pay for the environmental damage of the spill out of the kindness of their hearts, after passing a law specifically limiting the company's financial liability in case of a spill. It's nice, if you're in kindergarten, to expect the world to be all fluffy and happy and companies will simply not profit from loopholes and exemptions and little flaws that allow them to make more money.
This is not kindergarten. Expect that any flaw will be fully taken advantage of and abused, and must be taken care of like the SRS BSNS that it is.

Even better! So the people that in theory are the ones losing out from all this have the power to do something about it!

A new kind of poll is born, a client that does filtered relaying where the user can opt as to what kind of filtering to apply gives that user a vote. Then it is not just he said, she said, it's actually measuring user opinion.

But having clients decide on their own relay rules opens a whole new can of worms, of course, and will ultimately open a new angle of attack against bitcoin stability. It does present an interesting case, perhaps worth discussing further.

Let me get this straight: a blockchain fork caused by the fixing of an unknown bug should be fixed ASAP. On the other hand the blockchain should be deliberately forked because not all miners agree with you?

If miners refuse to do their job in filtering, there's no reason to leave it up to miners.
Regular participating nodes can refuse to relay blocks with (eg) more than 50% Dice spam.

Banning is such a strong word, though. If a majority of miners would in fact refuse such transactions other smaller miners would start getting a lot of orphans and would be forced to either reduce their blocksize drastically or starts filtering out what goes in to their mined blocks. But that's only if the majority of miners sees that as a good thing for the network and their bottom line, no?

I mean, one of the most beautiful things about bitcoins, and one of the most criticized features of it at the same time is the lack of an appointed central authority, but majority still rules the chain.

If anything, we should be banning miners who refuse to do reasonable filtering like this.

kabong...

Touché... nothing like having good arguments to assert a point.

Stop +1'ing my posts.
Don't you know there's possibly nothing you can learn from them?

+1

I am not defending nor attacking SD, and as I'm running a competitor (which is obviously a drop of water in the ocean, or a 1 satoshi tx in a large block compared to SD).

And the point that SD's stressing of the network is a great future proofing test has been made as many times as the SD is evil one. I don't understand why SD hasn't change its behaviour towards the problem but then again that hasn't reduced the amount of users they get, and thus the market has spoken. I would most certainly like to see a better fee equalization algorithm implemented, and would be glad to help achieve it, but it feels to me that most everyone chooses a side and points the finger, spending way too much time repeating "'coz I said so".

This is entirely irrelevant when the fees are miniscule, compared to the block reward subsidy.

The cost of all those unspent outputs created by SD, for lost bets, impacts all bitcoin users.

In fact SD didn't trigger the bug.
The devs rushing to "fix" things which could be "fixed" by SD changing it's ways instead of "fixed" on the network level was the trigger.

I believe SD sends dustcoins WITH proper tx fees. SD is paying the vast majority of fees now included in blocks, and has been for a while.

I usually steer clear of these particular trains of thought, but you do understand SD wasn't responsible, right? A bug in the BDB code caused this, and yes, SD did trigger the bug but while it was a nuisance to be very mild (I lost almost 4 hours of what was otherwise already too little sleep for this), it does mean some big enterprise (read government) that happens to find this bug can't create havoc and properly abuse this situation with properly prepared double spends and the like.

Honestly, I strongly believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion, mine isn't better than yours outside my own system of values but this community should keep together a little better and your constant calling wolf isn't helping, in my opinion... it is just my opinion! I don't really care too much what other people think anyway, unless I perceive a chance of learning from them.

I missed the part where it is actually possible to enforce a ban on transaction spam filters.

The best you can do about it is whine and whine on the forums and hopefully some miners agree with you and don't use it.

I agree that it doesn't have to be SD specific; it could simply filter out spammy dustcoins with no tx fee.

Isn't it good when people rush to "fix" things and fork the chain because of it?

Bitcoin doesnt need fixing. Satoshidice on the other hand...
They are now also responsible for a fork on the chain, like the spam wasn't enough.

I am coming to the conclusion that this business is like herding cats

Mining pool operators could make it economical to collect those unprunable outputs tomorrow if they wanted to, with no changes needed to the protocol.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/dust-collection-150726

Is this because of the small amounts? or some other technical reason?


Can we not find a way to make there trasactions prunable?

To be honest SD using 70% of the blockchain is ridiculous, im all libertarian and freemarket n shit but if a service is using 70% of the blcokchain slowing everyone elses shit down AND they are making transactions that will never be prunable its got to change, espeicially if the majority of bitcoiners feel the same way.