http://bitledger.info/hard-fork-risks-and-why-95-should-be-the-standard/
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19139. (Read 26608198 times)
March 01, 2016, 07:06:04 AM
March 01, 2016, 07:04:40 AM
I keep being surprised by the incredible amount of energy some people are willing to invest in order to find spammers, scammers... While earning nothing from it Oo
March 01, 2016, 07:00:42 AM
March 01, 2016, 06:56:11 AM
I thought Core was immune to dDos?
There is no such thing as being immune to DDOS , but there are multiple ways of handling it rather than both temporarily and permanently externalizing the costs on the whole network. 3 pennies per tx doesn't pay for these externalities as the true cost per tx is between 5-10usd.
Right now the fee market is handling the ddos. There are other methods* being suggested as well like -
plan a) limit connection for new nodes, from old versions 7/6/unknown.
plan b) delay low fee trx and deliver them in bundles - less to process
plan c) plan a & b together + backbone analysis nodes to collect statistics for future.
* to deal with the problems of old versions massively relaying very low tx
March 01, 2016, 06:44:24 AM
Looks like we likely found one of the "spammers" attacking the network -
Thats just one of the sources.
I thought Core was immune to dDos?
edit: Ah, I see you are updating your post.
March 01, 2016, 06:31:30 AM
Thanks for trying. But your definition seems to be bereft of any ability to classify transactions as spam or legitimate. It is situational dependent. Changing by the moment. Under your definition, a transaction that would be spam at one point in time may not be spam at another point in time, and vice versa.
Why can't definitions be relative and conceptual instead of static?
A precise definition of spam has to include negative connotation, and value judgements will naturally shift over time.
Exactly.
----------------------------------------------
Looks like we likely found one of the "spammers" attacking the network -
This isn't behavior that is typical from a tumbler or mixer.
https://twitter.com/DataTranslator/status/704579281507258368
Quote
1KNCgSJVHg3W5hMCyGeRA1vBiPn9Vi4qXt is been sending coins to itself since the 28th, no signs of stopping.
and another
https://twitter.com/DataTranslator/status/704612433869021184
March 01, 2016, 06:29:39 AM
yeah baby, 2,5 million BTC in memepool with a total fee of 6 BTC!
https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin/
forkers gotta derp.
https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin/
forkers gotta derp.
Yo hdbuck,
You finally get some success in building The Realest Bitcoin (client)?
They totally weren't making fun of you after you left neither...
March 01, 2016, 06:26:16 AM
Can't wait until small block retards are proved to be irresponsible idiots by empirical data points.
We should make a list of them, so in the future we will never forget who they were and humiliate them forever.
We should make a list of them, so in the future we will never forget who they were and humiliate them forever.
There's no such thing as a small block retard.
People have ideas and inclinations based on information that they have, and there's a lot of misinformation out there regarding what's even going on with the block chain; how much is spam, whether an increase is currently justified and/or wether segregated witness will take care of some if not all of this spamming blockage to the extent blockage exists and if not what would be better additional solutions going forward once segregated witness is in place.
That's why it's important to relie on the empirical facts to judge who are right and who are the fucking irresponsible retards. It's darwinian selection. It's a process way more efficient than pointless debating.
So now we are going to see that full block are not good at all and see who were the dangerous retards who thought full blocks were somehow cool.
It's like the bolcheviks. They have ideas and they thought they were right. They talked badly of people who disagree with them. Then the testing of their ideas prove that they were huge retards and that they had their head full shit. Gmaxwell and Adam Back are the Lenin of their time. The sooner the market route around them, the better.
It seems to me you have a very precise idea of your own position at least.
I don't have such brutal and clear opinion on this issue. And from the grasp of complexity I was able to see, it seems impossible for me to have a clear point of view of the situation as we're still lacking data.
Yeah small blocks have problems, but what do you want? Bigger and bigger blocks? You do realize that in order to scale the Visa transactions we would need 800GB blocks... Seems complicated to me...
March 01, 2016, 06:21:10 AM
[OR... if your lead foil is thick enough... the small blockers doing exactly the opposite of what you'd think they'd do after seeing the big blockers ddos themselves.]
I understand that is the current wisdom. Nobody is attacking each other, just themselves. Nerds are shit at warfare.
March 01, 2016, 06:00:41 AM
March 01, 2016, 05:54:10 AM
I don't think the traditional definition of spam really works for bitcoin. Since we don't (generally) have enough information to know why any given transaction was sent, it could just as easily be ignorance or malice that it was with too low a fee. "Spam" generally has an ulterior motive, such as advertising, or installing a trojan on your machine, to get your bank account info, nigerian prince wants to give you money, etc, which is much easier to determine in email or chats just based on the content. But with bitcoin there isn't any content to analyse other than the transaction itself.
In an engineer mindset, it makes more sense to just avoid words like spam altogether, and just label every transaction with a % probability of being included in the next block. Then you just have a useful number, instead of terms which mean different things to different people. Label transactions with numbers, not words, as the blockchain does not care what words we use. Then you can decide yourself if you think everything below a 3% chance is spam, or maybe you think everything below 90% is spam, doesn't matter as long as we have a probability baseline.
In an engineer mindset, it makes more sense to just avoid words like spam altogether, and just label every transaction with a % probability of being included in the next block. Then you just have a useful number, instead of terms which mean different things to different people. Label transactions with numbers, not words, as the blockchain does not care what words we use. Then you can decide yourself if you think everything below a 3% chance is spam, or maybe you think everything below 90% is spam, doesn't matter as long as we have a probability baseline.
March 01, 2016, 05:37:05 AM
March 01, 2016, 05:34:15 AM
Can't wait until small block retards are proved to be irresponsible idiots by empirical data points.
We should make a list of them, so in the future we will never forget who they were and humiliate them forever.
We should make a list of them, so in the future we will never forget who they were and humiliate them forever.
There's no such thing as a small block retard.
People have ideas and inclinations based on information that they have, and there's a lot of misinformation out there regarding what's even going on with the block chain; how much is spam, whether an increase is currently justified and/or wether segregated witness will take care of some if not all of this spamming blockage to the extent blockage exists and if not what would be better additional solutions going forward once segregated witness is in place.
That's why it's important to relie on the empirical facts to judge who are right and who are the fucking irresponsible retards. It's darwinian selection. It's a process way more efficient than pointless debating.
So now we are going to see that full block are not good at all and see who were the dangerous retards who thought full blocks were somehow cool.
It's like the bolcheviks. They have ideas and they thought they were right. They talked badly of people who disagree with them. Then the testing of their ideas prove that they were huge retards and that they had their head full shit. Gmaxwell and Adam Back are the Lenin of their time. The sooner the market route around them, the better.
March 01, 2016, 05:22:02 AM
Can't wait until small block retards are proved to be irresponsible idiots by empirical data points.
We should make a list of them, so in the future we will never forget who they were and humiliate them forever.
We should make a list of them, so in the future we will never forget who they were and humiliate them forever.
There's no such thing as a small block retard.
People have ideas and inclinations based on information that they have, and there's a lot of misinformation out there regarding what's even going on with the block chain; how much is spam, whether an increase is currently justified and/or wether segregated witness will take care of some if not all of this spamming blockage to the extent blockage exists and if not what would be better additional solutions going forward once segregated witness is in place.
March 01, 2016, 05:04:28 AM
Can't wait until small block retards are proved to be irresponsible idiots by empirical data points.
We should make a list of them, so in the future we will never forget who they were and humiliate them forever.
We should make a list of them, so in the future we will never forget who they were and humiliate them forever.
March 01, 2016, 05:00:57 AM
If we took the currency issue out of this conflict, it would look something like this:
Chipherpunk A builds a permanent immutable database and wants to charge people to write to it because he doesn't want it to fill up with crap.
Cipherpunk B builds a permanent immutable database and he lets anybody write anything to it because that's what free speech really is.
Smallblockers are the censors who see themselves as the guardians of free speech. They want to guard free speech with censorship. If you elect yourself the arbiter of what is and is not spam, you are practicing censorship. If you charge people for writing on a public wall you are a censor.
I think smallblockers see themselves more as publishers, people who have not only the right but the responsibility to ensure only quality things get printed, given the real cost of printing. This would be true if Bitcoin was a private good, but it is not. It is a public good, in the economic sense.
Smallblockers are just another form of censorship for crypto to overcome, either by routing around Core or routing around Bitcoin.
Chipherpunk A builds a permanent immutable database and wants to charge people to write to it because he doesn't want it to fill up with crap.
Cipherpunk B builds a permanent immutable database and he lets anybody write anything to it because that's what free speech really is.
Smallblockers are the censors who see themselves as the guardians of free speech. They want to guard free speech with censorship. If you elect yourself the arbiter of what is and is not spam, you are practicing censorship. If you charge people for writing on a public wall you are a censor.
I think smallblockers see themselves more as publishers, people who have not only the right but the responsibility to ensure only quality things get printed, given the real cost of printing. This would be true if Bitcoin was a private good, but it is not. It is a public good, in the economic sense.
Smallblockers are just another form of censorship for crypto to overcome, either by routing around Core or routing around Bitcoin.
tl;dr govvy troll muddies the waters by mixing up "free as in beer" and "free as in freedom" into a witches brew of psy-op misinformation
I very specifically and intentionally did not do that.
Quote
pub·lic good
noun
1.
ECONOMICS
a commodity or service that is provided without profit to all members of a society, either by the government or a private individual or organization.
"a conviction that library informational services are a public good, not a commercial commodity"
noun
1.
ECONOMICS
a commodity or service that is provided without profit to all members of a society, either by the government or a private individual or organization.
"a conviction that library informational services are a public good, not a commercial commodity"
You are conflating a qualitative and quantitative limit on transactions. YOU are the one confusing "free as in beer" and "free as in freedom". A $10 remittance to an impoverished family member may be more important than a $1000 dice bet by a millionaire due to marginal utility. It may or may not be. That isn't for me or you to determine. By forcing one of those two transactions off the network (because fees do not increase capacity), you are giving rich people an artificial advantage over poor people in addition to the natural advantages they already posses. You've turned Bitcoin into just another tool of oppression.
Because Bitcoin is a public good, and because the Law of Marginal Utility applies to money just like any other commodity, an artificial fee market amounts to a regressive tax. You've turned Bitcoin into just another tool of oppression.
+1 Beautifully written. Bitcoin is just like every other invention. It's neither good nor bad. However, it can be used both ways. Luckily, Bitcoin gave us the opportunity to opt-out of the "fee enslavement" plan.
Isn't it intersting, how we transform our believe systems without recognizing it.
March 01, 2016, 05:00:43 AM
March 01, 2016, 04:47:33 AM
Everybody is self-interested, even charity hospital volunteers and philanthropists. The discipline of economics uses very specific definitions, precisely so economists won't waste time in stupid arguments like this but can move on to more substantive things. You are not making an economic argument. You are making a philosophical argument. I am not even remotely interested in engaging in that. I don't want to re-invent the wheel or take the time to learn some Objectivist secret code words.
An open-source, permissionless network is a public good, regardless of who pays for it or who profits from it. This isn't my opinion. This is simply a classification in the field of political economy. It's not a classification category I just made up or tweaked the definition for my own ends. If you don't like the terms economists use, then don't use them, but you can't say that they are wrong. A term means what people agree it means, what people use it to mean. You can try an tell a biologist that an elephant isn't a mammal because it has a trunk and he'll just look at you funny. It's not even coherent enough to be wrong.
An open-source, permissionless network is a public good, regardless of who pays for it or who profits from it. This isn't my opinion. This is simply a classification in the field of political economy. It's not a classification category I just made up or tweaked the definition for my own ends. If you don't like the terms economists use, then don't use them, but you can't say that they are wrong. A term means what people agree it means, what people use it to mean. You can try an tell a biologist that an elephant isn't a mammal because it has a trunk and he'll just look at you funny. It's not even coherent enough to be wrong.
I think you are using the definition of "public good" incorrectly. We aren't in violent disagreement here, but going further would be time better spent fending off and dismantling the arguments of the budding central planners... tomorrow.
BJA may be full of shit in a lot of ways; however, his describing bitcoin as a public good is not one of the ways that he is full of shit.
Bitcoin is a public good in the same way that the internet is a public good - even though bitcoin is more of a novelty at this point and utilized by a (so far) smaller segment of the population.
March 01, 2016, 04:45:18 AM
Spam includes any unwanted or unnecessary transactions which impose a burden upon the network.
Unwanted and Unnecessary can be defined as tx which are deliberately made to attack the network and hold no purpose other than to cause disruption or bloat. Spam is also defined as any tx that pays far below the necessary threshold of fees that would be considered the norm during a given moment. This can change with time but is always quite distinguishable as seen here:
https://bitcoinfees.21.co/#delay
In the chart above you can see :
21-40 Satoshi's Per Byte is arguable
0-20 Satoshi's Per Byte is clearly spam
Now it is not for us to decide for a miner if they want to subsidize or process spam on the network regardless of any externalities it imposes upon all full nodes permanently and the network as a whole.
Unwanted and Unnecessary can be defined as tx which are deliberately made to attack the network and hold no purpose other than to cause disruption or bloat. Spam is also defined as any tx that pays far below the necessary threshold of fees that would be considered the norm during a given moment. This can change with time but is always quite distinguishable as seen here:
https://bitcoinfees.21.co/#delay
In the chart above you can see :
21-40 Satoshi's Per Byte is arguable
0-20 Satoshi's Per Byte is clearly spam
Now it is not for us to decide for a miner if they want to subsidize or process spam on the network regardless of any externalities it imposes upon all full nodes permanently and the network as a whole.
Thanks for trying. But your definition seems to be bereft of any ability to classify transactions as spam or legitimate. It is situational dependent. Changing by the moment. Under your definition, a transaction that would be spam at one point in time may not be spam at another point in time, and vice versa.
It may be that you wish to classify something as either: a) below some level of satoshis per byte; or b) above some level of satoshis per byte. Which might be meaningful in our system. But that is not spam vs legitimate. Further, your fellow travelers are distinctly attaching a value of 'bad' to those transactions they deem 'spam', and 'not bad' to those transactions they deem 'legitimate'. Even if your metric was not variable from moment to moment, it does not fit into this framework.
Until recently, a transaction with zero transaction fees attached would have been privileged if it destroyed a sufficient number of bitcoin-days. Under your definition, such a transaction is spam, regardless of the economic value of the transaction - even Satoshi moving his fabled nut. I submit to you that such a definition is at least pejorative.
But hey - its 'a' definition.
A precise definition of spam has to include negative connotation, and value judgements will naturally shift over time.
March 01, 2016, 04:41:27 AM
Everybody is self-interested, even charity hospital volunteers and philanthropists. The discipline of economics uses very specific definitions, precisely so economists won't waste time in stupid arguments like this but can move on to more substantive things. You are not making an economic argument. You are making a philosophical argument. I am not even remotely interested in engaging in that. I don't want to re-invent the wheel or take the time to learn some Objectivist secret code words.
An open-source, permissionless network is a public good, regardless of who pays for it or who profits from it. This isn't my opinion. This is simply a classification in the field of political economy. It's not a classification category I just made up or tweaked the definition for my own ends. If you don't like the terms economists use, then don't use them, but you can't say that they are wrong. A term means what people agree it means, what people use it to mean. You can try an tell a biologist that an elephant isn't a mammal because it has a trunk and he'll just look at you funny. It's not even coherent enough to be wrong.
An open-source, permissionless network is a public good, regardless of who pays for it or who profits from it. This isn't my opinion. This is simply a classification in the field of political economy. It's not a classification category I just made up or tweaked the definition for my own ends. If you don't like the terms economists use, then don't use them, but you can't say that they are wrong. A term means what people agree it means, what people use it to mean. You can try an tell a biologist that an elephant isn't a mammal because it has a trunk and he'll just look at you funny. It's not even coherent enough to be wrong.
I think you are using the definition of "public good" incorrectly. Otherwise, we aren't in violent disagreement, going further would be time better spent fending off and dismantling the arguments of the budding central planners... tomorrow.
Quote
pub·lic good
noun
1.
ECONOMICS
a commodity or service that is provided without profit to all members of a society, either by the government or a private individual or organization.
"a conviction that library informational services are a public good, not a commercial commodity"
noun
1.
ECONOMICS
a commodity or service that is provided without profit to all members of a society, either by the government or a private individual or organization.
"a conviction that library informational services are a public good, not a commercial commodity"
Satoshi's idea and code is a public good... its implementation and function, is not.
Jump to: