Wonder who this solominer is? 88.6.216.9 - page 17.

Littleshop

legendary

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1004

Quote from: DeepBit on March 21, 2012, 09:53:21 PM

Quote from: Littleshop on March 21, 2012, 09:38:55 PM

Quote from: DeepBit on March 21, 2012, 06:06:23 PM

Yes, I published my fee policy recently

I tried to find it (your website, your thread in pools) and could not. Link please?

I think this is a good thing, pools and miners publishing fee policies. To actually put a price (hopefully low) on speed and blockchain storage price will give incentives to reduce blockchain bloat.

https://deepbit.net/help/6#6

Usually my free zone is big enough for all pending free TXes to fit.

Nice. Seems reasonable.

rjk

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

1ngldh

Quote from: DeepBit on March 21, 2012, 09:53:21 PM

https://deepbit.net/help/6#6

Usually my free zone is big enough for all pending free TXes to fit.

Good, clear, sane and simple policy.

DeepBit

donator

Activity: 532

Merit: 501

We have cookies

Quote from: Littleshop on March 21, 2012, 09:38:55 PM

Quote from: DeepBit on March 21, 2012, 06:06:23 PM

Yes, I published my fee policy recently :)

I tried to find it (your website, your thread in pools) and could not. Link please?

I think this is a good thing, pools and miners publishing fee policies. To actually put a price (hopefully low) on speed and blockchain storage price will give incentives to reduce blockchain bloat.

https://deepbit.net/help/6#6

Usually my free zone is big enough for all pending free TXes to fit.

Littleshop

legendary

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1004

Quote from: DeepBit on March 21, 2012, 06:06:23 PM

Yes, I published my fee policy recently

I tried to find it (your website, your thread in pools) and could not. Link please?

I think this is a good thing, pools and miners publishing fee policies. To actually put a price (hopefully low) on speed and blockchain storage price will give incentives to reduce blockchain bloat.

Raoul Duke

legendary

Activity: 1358

Merit: 1002

WTF... What does fee value have to do with someone mining blocks with no transactions besides the generation?

You're doing it wrong... The problem here is that the minted coins are above tx fee's tenfold(or should I say thousand fold?). To fix that we'll have to wait 40 years, not raise fees.

Get a grip, dudes... honestly!

DeepBit

donator

Activity: 532

Merit: 501

We have cookies

Yes, I published my fee policy recently :)

rdponticelli

sr. member

Activity: 325

Merit: 250

Our highest capital is the Confidence we build.

A long term fix for the fees issue could be a protocol by which miners publish the service they can provide (estimated hashrate provided and corresponding time to process) and the minimal fee at which they are willing to take the job. So a gui user can select the most convenient offer for him when he sends the transaction. This way you can build a free market of transactions which will tend to autoregulate.

molecular

donator

Activity: 2772

Merit: 1019

Quote from: Dusty on March 21, 2012, 09:13:37 AM

Quote from: molecular on March 20, 2012, 07:52:03 AM

We better make bitcoin as solid as possible before we really depend on it. People like Luke-Jr and ArtForz attacking alt-chains is part of this hardening-process.

I'm interested in knowing the details of what happened with the attacking of alt-chains by Luke-jr and ArtForz, can you please point me to the right threads, if this is has been already discussed elsewhere?

I didn't dig very deep, but here are some pointers for you:

description of artforz' attack on geistgeld https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.521772 (I think he actually conducted it and I remember he said so somewhere (indirectly), but couldn't find it or any other mention of his conducting it). attack also mentioned here: http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/1055/what-is-the-zeitgeist-attack-does-it-affect-all-blockchain-technologies
luke-jr attacked coiledcoin: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.678006

maybe this helps you to research it a little further if you like.

check_status

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

Web Dev, Db Admin, Computer Technician

So the whole problem is the potential threat no tx blocks are/could cause for the bitcoin community.

I like the idea where the halving cuts into profits for no tx's miners.

The other potential issue is a botnet mining BTC, fck'm.

How to treat a botnet operator:
Meat hooks tied to horses and inserted in the botops rectum, then yell to the horses, "Gidyup...HAA!"

PrintCoins

hero member

Activity: 533

Merit: 501

Good for the miners. It looks like they are pushing for higher fees.

If you give them 50BTC for mining the block, you better give them something comparable to record those transactions.

A transaction doesn't have a TTL, so if you store up a few thousand transactions with really small fees, you might be able to make a little money off of applying them all to one block.

Or, if you want to be abusive, you could save up all the free transactions and just record them all in one block many years from now.

Quote from: conspirosphere.tk on March 21, 2012, 02:16:47 PM

Quote from: spiccioli on March 21, 2012, 01:23:13 PM

Empty blocks should not be accepted if there are a certain number (value?) of waiting transactions.

This is the best idea I heard up to now. At least would keep the network working.

Accepting empty blocks is not a valid way to handle the situation, and their is no profit in doing so. Ignoring transactions is a way to signal users that they have to pay up. It would be great if miners had a way to advertise the price they would have accepted in fees.

rjk

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

1ngldh

Quote from: conspirosphere.tk on March 21, 2012, 02:16:47 PM

Quote from: spiccioli on March 21, 2012, 01:23:13 PM

Empty blocks should not be accepted if there are a certain number (value?) of waiting transactions.

This is the best idea I heard up to now. At least would keep the network working.

This would suck for those that might occasionally get partitioned off the main net, which happens occasionally. But if that were the problem, they probably wouldn't be getting valid blocks out in enough time anyway.

This is an interesting concept however, but I'm fairly sure it would be non-trivial to implement.

spiccioli

legendary

Activity: 1379

Merit: 1003

nec sine labore

Quote from: P4man on March 21, 2012, 01:33:46 PM

Quote from: spiccioli on March 21, 2012, 01:23:13 PM

higher fees could be a problem for developing countries.

I did say "suggest" (ie, the user could always override it, because he can anyway) and "for larger transactions".
Someone sending 1000BTC is not going to switch to western union when he is kindly asked to pay 0.1 BTC fees instead of 0.001. Whether he lives in Congo or Monaco doesnt change a thing either.

P4man,

I think that if fees are just suggested nobody will pay them even for big amounts.

Small fees work well if you have millions of transactions daily, at that point even a milliBTC fee is enough, but right now there is not such a volume of transactions going on, so you need very high fees to make it worth adding transactions to blocks.

spiccioli

conspirosphere.tk

legendary

Activity: 2352

Merit: 1064

Bitcoin is antisemitic

Quote from: spiccioli on March 21, 2012, 01:23:13 PM

Empty blocks should not be accepted if there are a certain number (value?) of waiting transactions.

This is the best idea I heard up to now. At least would keep the network working.

DeepBit

donator

Activity: 532

Merit: 501

We have cookies

Quote from: P4man on March 21, 2012, 01:10:07 PM

Quote from: DeepBit on March 21, 2012, 01:02:16 PM

Protocol change is not needed, anyone can configure fee amount in their clients according to current BTC rate.

But of course almost no one will. Its like asking people to pay their taxes voluntarily.
A protocol change might be a bridge too far, but it might not be a bad idea to have the default client at least suggest a higher fee for larger transactions.

It's not similar to taxes at all. More like paying for a service. Usually you can't pay as much taxes as you want and get some services accordingly.

Fees aren't related to protocol, but yes, client's default setting considerably affects them.
People should be able to set zero fees if they are feeling lucky.

roomservice

full member

Activity: 199

Merit: 100

Quote from: Zeikos on March 21, 2012, 01:50:17 PM

This thread reminds me about another discussion that was talking about a hypotetical AI based on gaining bitcoins Roll Eyes

actualy it's a useless reply but whatever Wink

{SKYNET ONLINE}

Zeikos

newbie

Activity: 19

Merit: 0

This thread reminds me about another discussion that was talking about a hypotetical AI based on gaining bitcoins Roll Eyes

actualy it's a useless reply but whatever Wink

P4man

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Quote from: spiccioli on March 21, 2012, 01:23:13 PM

higher fees could be a problem for developing countries.

I did say "suggest" (ie, the user could always override it, because he can anyway) and "for larger transactions".
Someone sending 1000BTC is not going to switch to western union when he is kindly asked to pay 0.1 BTC fees instead of 0.001. Whether he lives in Congo or Monaco doesnt change a thing either.

dizzy1

full member

Activity: 134

Merit: 100

Why is it that suddenly blocks that have a higher height has was created before the current block? I've noticed this a few times in the last week. Unless blockchain.info's info is off.

http://i.imgur.com/FhVME.png

spiccioli

legendary

Activity: 1379

Merit: 1003

nec sine labore

Quote from: P4man on March 21, 2012, 01:10:07 PM

Quote from: DeepBit on March 21, 2012, 01:02:16 PM

Protocol change is not needed, anyone can configure fee amount in their clients according to current BTC rate.

But of course almost no one will. Its like asking people to pay their taxes voluntarily.
A protocol change might be a bridge too far, but it might not be a bad idea to have the default client at least suggest a higher fee for larger transactions.

P4man,

higher fees could be a problem for developing countries.

Empty blocks should not be accepted if there are a certain number (value?) of waiting transactions.

spiccioli

P4man

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Quote from: DeepBit on March 21, 2012, 01:02:16 PM

Protocol change is not needed, anyone can configure fee amount in their clients according to current BTC rate.

But of course almost no one will. Its like asking people to pay their taxes voluntarily.
A protocol change might be a bridge too far, but it might not be a bad idea to have the default client at least suggest a higher fee for larger transactions.

Topic: Wonder who this solominer is? 88.6.216.9 - page 17. (Read 60498 times)