Topic: Why Komodo Group-Signed Transactions are Not Spam - page 2. (Read 2437 times)

No... I assumed the blocks wouldn't be full, so there would be plenty of room for no-fee (or minimum fee) transactions. Translated: Room for spam. Usually one will not pay more when they can pay less. I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that you were the one suggesting blocks would always be full since you said, "In both scenarios we would be paying fees to the miner."


Yes, but it grows faster with bigger blocks, and much faster with much bigger blocks.


Maybe that's because there isn't enough of a market for big players to get involved yet?


I'd argue that they have very little power compared the economic majority. One wrong step and they can be obsoleted completely.


A block chain based business that builds it's business model on an assumption that it's transaction will be included in the next block every time should probably rethink it's business model.

They are far from clogging up the Bitcoin Network  and account for a very small portion of the backed up mempool.


https://blockchain.info/address/1P3rU1Nk1pmc2BiWC8dEy9bZa1ZbMp5jfg

You assume that no matter what the block size is increased to that it will constantly fill up.    That is not the case necessarily.   It has taken the better part of a decade to consistently have 1MB blocks filled.  


Local Blockchain Storage can be optimized using an append-only dataset as SuperNET's  Iguana Wallet does.   This reduces the effect of large block size on  storing a copy of a blockchain and the bandwidth required to do it in an efficient manner.   No matter what, there is going to be some requirement of bandwidth and storage space to host a full node and even in its current state with an inefficient block size,  the blockchain grows on and on.

The contention with the miners is two-fold.    Many large miners either have deals with or are ASIC manufacturers .  Keeping the block size small encourages them to invest in building/buying more miners  which does nothing to encourage competition and everything to solidify power in the hands of a few.




The security of the Bitcoin Network comes at the cost of democratic inefficiency,  therefore a loss of utility.   A blockchain based business  that needs to operate in realtime cannot have its transactions backed up for hours or days.  Increasing the fees accounts for losses to the company's bottom line.   If it is too much the company will close up shop or move to a network that is more profitable.   Which ends up as a loss to the utility to the Bitcoin ecosystem.

expected bitcoin blocks every day: 144

average bitcoin blocks vary every day: 100+ ??

komodo notary nodes: 64

Each notary node group signs a raw bitcoin transaction.

Total transactions sent per bitcoin block: 1

Total transactions sent per day approx: 100+ ??

Fee paid per block transaction: 0.00031200 BTC

Total approx fee paid per day if 100 is taken as value for each day bitcoin blocks mined: 0.00031200 * 100 = 0.03120000 BTC

As of now, 1 Day's blockchain Mempool Transaction Count Size: 33,599

33,599 Mempool Transaction Count size - 100 Komodo Notary Transaction = 33,499


This whole thread and arguments that Komodo Notary Nodes are spamming don't even make sense.

Find better sources and topics to argument about.

So you are saying blocks will always be full of fee paying transactions, regardless of block size? If the blocks are always full, won't the people who want to cheap microtransactions complain? Won't full blocks mean BU increases the size again with their adjustable settings? Won't constantly full blocks, much larger than today, drastically increase the size of the block chain? Won't the bandwidth required to share all this data reach a point where home users won't be able to run a full node anymore?

By happy miners do you mean more profit for the miners? If there is more profit for the miners, doesn't that mean there will be more competition in the mining world? If there is more competition to mine, won't there will be more hashing power attempting to find blocks? If there is more hashing power attempting to find blocks, will the network will be more secure from attack? As a holder of Bitcoin, I'm supposed to be opposed to a network that is more secure? Also, a network that is more secure has less utility?

Help me understand.

No. In both scenarios we would be paying fees to the miner. The fact you want to have a smaller block chain means high fees for everyone. That would mean Bitcoin will have less utility than it does now which means it would be worth less.

In this case, small blockchain proponents are shooting themselves in the foot and making the miners VERY happy!

In one scenario, they have to compete to append the block chain (they pay their own way). In the other, they simply use it because it's there (while others pay the price).

Well, no. In either a small block or a large block scenario, they have the ability to use the system. There may or may not be some relative expense barrier, but they can still use it regardless. While I want to think of it as 'abusing' the system, such an attitude would be in direct conflict with the 'permissionless' philosophy. In a permissionless system, anything that goes, goes.

The beauty is, in a small block block chain, they will either be priced out by users willing to pay more than them, or they will have to increase their fees (and help secure the Bitcoin block chain) to continue using Bitcoin as their supposed network security (I say supposed because I personally don't think their model offers any real security at all, but I will admit I didn't bother to delve that deeply into it).

In a large block block chain, they (and others) will have free reign to "abuse" the system with great ease. In such a scenario, I expect other measures will have to be implemented to prevent such "abuse" and before long the system will be unrecognizable.

IOW, Komodo is a parasite. phhttthhh to you.

Well, Bitcoin is permissionless. This is just one consequence of this permissionlessness. As much as I find it distasteful.

Frankly, I don't buy into the 'spam' narrative to begin with. There is no objective way of looking at a transaction, and classifying it as spam vs notspam. As long as it pays the fee that some miner would include it in a valid solved block, its valid.

What makes   one users transactions "legitimate"  and another users transactions not?   They are valid tx's  according the protocol,  so obviously they can be sent.   Looking at it from a "legitimate use" point of view,     the transactions  serve a purpose   and aren't just created for no reason at all as in a spam attack.

By what definition are we abusing the protocol?

We have been doing this since Oct. I dont hear anyone complaining about it when there was no issues with the blocks being full?

That analogy does not fit either as you dont pay a fee to make a request do you?

well bitcoin is decentralized and has clear rules about which transactions are valid and these rules are being abused. you can call it Delayed Proof-of-Work or Stress test or Political crap about block size or even it is the protocol and I like sending those transactions and in all cases the transactions are clogging the network causing a huge memory pool which the current block size without activation of any of the proposals can not handle.

and then it causes the fee war and users having to wait hours for their transactions to be confirmed.

you can right now make a small program and make 100,000 requests per second to bitcointalk.org and you aren't doing anything wrong TCP protocol allows you to make these requests but you are just DDoS attacking bitcointalk.org and making it inaccessible to other users.

Why Komodo Group-Signed Transactions Are Not Spam



There are several in here that accuse the Komodo notary nodes in their group-signed transaction of contributing to the delays on the Bitcoin Network.  This is not the case.  First, our transactions count for well less than 1% of the current backlog. In addition they are a part of a necessary function in the SuperNET ecosystem aimed at enhancing the bitcoin networks scalability.


Everyone has heard of the block size debate and its proposed solutions.  Whether you are a proponent of SegWit + LN or BigBlocks or some other method in-between, most all can agree something needs done.   Komodo aims at tackling current and future need for storing data on a secure distributed ledger  through its scalability mechanism  known as " Delayed Proof-of-Work ".

Delayed Proof-of-Work  works by receiving submissions from third-party blockchains and recording their hashes into a Komodo Block.   The blockhash of that block  is then submitted in a group-signed transaction to Bitcoin's Network through a group of elected node operators.   This signed transaction forms a "checkpoint"  where if at a future time either a third-party blockchain or Komodo itself  becomes threatened by a malicious actor or a fork divides the community, this checkpoint system gives the operators of the respective networks a " last known good" block hash  from which they can start efforts of fixing their network. 


The Delayed Proof-of-Work system  is already securing more than 36 blockchains!!!   


For an attacker to totally compromise Komodo or the independent block chains that it secures  it would have to undermine bitcoin's security,  which is an extremely difficult if not impossible feat.



Delayed Proof-of-Work acts as a scalability mechanism  in the sense that developers can develop blockchain based projects, in full control of their own blockchain without being restricted by the technical and political limitations of bitcoin or other parent network   while at the same time  benefit from the security granted by the incredible amount of hashing power that is used to secure bitcoin.


To learn more about how the Delayed Proof-of-Work consensus mechanism works

https://komodoplatform.com/whitepaper/

or to find out how more about Komodo and SuperNET's  cutting edge crypto developments
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1605144.6560