Soft block size limit reached, action required by YOU - page 15.

SRoulette

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 252

Quote from: scintill on March 06, 2013, 09:34:16 PM

Quote from: grue on March 06, 2013, 09:01:07 PM

how about no? because I don't want encourage some gambling website to fill up my hard drive with their bets.

Then don't let sdice transactions into your solved blocks, and encourage others to do the same. Mike didn't say you have to increase the soft limit. Luke-Jr posted about your other options.

Personally, banning sdice outright seems like the kind of scummy meddling bitcoin is supposed to solve. I would rather make them pay transaction fees somewhat proportional to the cost they incur on the network. If they pay them, miners get more money for their trouble, if not, they stop spamming the chain.

It does seem like the decent thing to do, for our casino we simply pay the network requested fees on all out payouts and adjust our margins and payouts to compensate. We even modified our dice game to make losing payouts an option for the players.

We like satoshidice (we kind of have to, we modelled some of our games after them) but we would like to see them take a more active involvement in resolving this issue that affects us all.

pyra-proxy

hero member

Activity: 490

Merit: 500

Quote from: scintill on March 06, 2013, 09:34:16 PM

Quote from: grue on March 06, 2013, 09:01:07 PM

how about no? because I don't want encourage some gambling website to fill up my hard drive with their bets.

Then don't let sdice transactions into your solved blocks, and encourage others to do the same. Mike didn't say you have to increase the soft limit. Luke-Jr posted about your other options.

Personally, banning sdice outright seems like the kind of scummy meddling bitcoin is supposed to solve. I would rather make them pay transaction fees somewhat proportional to the cost they incur on the network. If they pay them, miners get more money for their trouble, if not, they stop spamming the chain.

Free market to do something also incurs the the possibility that others may not want to assist or be accomplice ... ie. While I may allow any transaction that offers minimum+ fees, I can't fault others for using blacklists preventing them from being forced to process transactions relating to things they don't agree with. In reality I'd kind of like to start using a black list regarding known silk road processors and mixing services myself because they IMHO relate (semi-)directly to human injustices not just free market... s.dice I'd consider including only because the implementation they have currently is detrimental to the health and viability of bit coin at least until block chain bloat solutions are tested and implemented.

disclaimer201

legendary

Activity: 1526

Merit: 1001

I lost a lot of money today because of this shit. And I don't care for satoshi dice. Let them move to litecoin or ban them from spamming the network and my harddrives.

scintill

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 254

Quote from: grue on March 06, 2013, 09:01:07 PM

how about no? because I don't want encourage some gambling website to fill up my hard drive with their bets.

Then don't let sdice transactions into your solved blocks, and encourage others to do the same. Mike didn't say you have to increase the soft limit. Luke-Jr posted about your other options.

Personally, banning sdice outright seems like the kind of scummy meddling bitcoin is supposed to solve. I would rather make them pay transaction fees somewhat proportional to the cost they incur on the network. If they pay them, miners get more money for their trouble, if not, they stop spamming the chain.

grue

legendary

Activity: 2058

Merit: 1452

how about no? because I don't want encourage some gambling website to fill up my hard drive with their bets.

pyra-proxy

hero member

Activity: 490

Merit: 500

Way I see it is if satoshi dice is such a problem then they need to shutdown and come up with a new idea or the community should boycott them if they prefer a functioning financial system over an entertainment site... alternatively bit coin could solve its block chain bloat problem... of which very many very sound ideas have been proposed but it seems as if the powers at be won't care until its too late... but whatever let's just enjoy the ride while it lasts right? :-)

Smoovious

hero member

Activity: 504

Merit: 500

Scattering my bits around the net since 1980

What is the hard limit for block size anyways?

-- Smoov

420

hero member

Activity: 756

Merit: 500

by a node this means a miner right?

ALSO: what if satoshidice just switched all their internal transactions to LTC network?

would this be possible and help

just a thought

eleuthria

legendary

Activity: 1750

Merit: 1007

BTC Guild started setting up a new server this morning running modified block rules. Currently trying out a 500,000 byte maxblocksize. The problem is with larger blocks, you increase the chance of orphans since it will take at least twice as long to propagate, if not more. I've modified the fee settings to prefer fee based transactions when increasing the block size past 50 KB, so hopefully the increase in fees per block offset the orphan rate increase.

deepceleron

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1036

Add an additional .001 optional fee in your client and your transaction will be in the next block. The blockchain flooders are cheapskates. Transactions are not supposed to be cheap enough that you can blast hundreds of them out an hour with your gambling bot.

MPOE-PR

hero member

Activity: 756

Merit: 522

Quote from: Mike Hearn on March 06, 2013, 04:44:20 AM

Change your nodes code to de-prioritize or ignore transactions you don't care about, for example, Luke-Jr excludes SatoshiDice transactions which makes way for other users.

Actually the right way to solve such issues is to post this sort of bullshit drama here so that we can see that Mike Hearn is the sort of irrelevant muppet nobody cares about.

It's one thing if I just say it, it's another if he says it and time proves it.

Mike Hearn

legendary

Activity: 1526

Merit: 1134

No. I don't have their contact details, and even if I did, this is the wrong way to solve such issues.

Miners (all miners) need to understand what they're doing. The time when people could just click "Generate coins" and be done with it are long gone. It's very important that miners monitor the health of the network and understand what their software is doing.

For pools, the operators need to state what their block construction policies are, and the people with the hardware need to understand those policies and find pools with good ones.

That's far more than I or anyone else can do alone. Miners need to hold their pools accountable.

[Coins!]

member

Activity: 112

Merit: 10

Mike, have you contacted mining pool operators individually ?

Luke-Jr

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 1186

Note this isn't really a problem if miners are responsible and filter out the SatoshiDice flooding.
My git repository contains a "block_dice" branch to do just that.
The 0.8.0.eligius branch designed specifically for miners and pools also includes this.
Gavin also wrote up some more advanced configuration option examples here.

Akka

legendary

Activity: 1232

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Mike Hearn on March 06, 2013, 09:02:47 AM

We are already bumping up against a limit. No simulation needed. We have reality instead ...

OK, wrong word. Still I hope that most pools will not immediately lift / increase their limit. So we know what will happen when we reach the hard limit, which can't be changed so easily.

So let us bump against this for a few month. And lift it only if it really damages Bitcoin.

Mike Hearn

legendary

Activity: 1526

Merit: 1134

We are already bumping up against a limit. No simulation needed. We have reality instead ...

Akka

legendary

Activity: 1232

Merit: 1001

Well, I'm curious to see how this works out. Hopefully the most pools will not increase their Blocksize limit so we get a good simulation of how the Bitcoin environment behaves when we bump against a limit.

cedivad

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1001

Where is the foundation during the only moment we need it?

Mike Hearn

legendary

Activity: 1526

Merit: 1134

Good point, fixed.

playtin

full member

Activity: 201

Merit: 101

https://playt.in

Mike, you forgot to mention that this will not fork the block chain - otherwise your posting could result in even more threads about a hard fork by someone uninformed Wink

Topic: Soft block size limit reached, action required by YOU - page 15. (Read 64257 times)