Topic: WTF is up with this TX and all the Bitdust? (Read 1914 times)
We should be looking at blockchain Transactions as ISP's look at data transfer, It is none of there business what bullcrap, retarded, spam data people send and receive it is just there job to enable that transfer as fast as possible, just like a courier or post man.
although this thread is not about true dust of 1 satoshi.. i thought i should reply about actual satoshi dust.
banning 1 sat transactions is like saying we don't want Bitcoin to be worth thousands of dollars a coin in the future, causing the transactions for my loaf of bread becoming invalid in a few decades.
imagine this one company Satoshi dice. is giving you a sneak peak of how all transactions will be like in a few decades. where people will not be moving bitcoins, but satoshi's.
instead of banning them. finding solutions to accept them without causing strain on the system is what we should be all aiming for
banning 1 sat transactions is like saying we don't want Bitcoin to be worth thousands of dollars a coin in the future, causing the transactions for my loaf of bread becoming invalid in a few decades.
imagine this one company Satoshi dice. is giving you a sneak peak of how all transactions will be like in a few decades. where people will not be moving bitcoins, but satoshi's.
instead of banning them. finding solutions to accept them without causing strain on the system is what we should be all aiming for
Quote
You can't ban anyone in Bitcoin as long as there is just one miner who will validate transactions originating from their address. And you especially can't ban anyone if you don't know their addresses.
Yes I can, just see my patch here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/do-you-think-bitcoin-users-is-blockchain-spam-drop-their-txs-solution-inside-150755(But really, I guess my trolling got too thin if you took that seriously.)
I think this is flaw in the network protocol, and many blocks are too big because of this.
There is only one solution: ban SatoshiDice.
Lololol so much fun There is only one solution: ban SatoshiDice.
That kind of transaction is actually good! We want to encourage stuff like that. In fact we've talked about making clients do it automatically.
Here's a quick recap. Bitcoin has two types of costly data storage.
1) The block chain. Someone, somewhere, has to keep every transaction ever made, forever. However, whilst today that means "everyone who runs a full node", in future, it will mean "people who explicitly choose to" and every other node will be a pruning node - old data in the chain gets deleted. One can imagine that in a world where Bitcoin is tremendously successful there will be many organizations will to archive a data structure of such importance. Perhaps the Library of Congress
2) The unspent output set. Every full node has to maintain this, what's more, they must maintain it in high-speed storage. When a tx creates outputs this set grows, and when they claim outputs with inputs, it shrinks.
We can see then that whilst transactions like the named one are quite large, in the distant future only a small number of parties must store it, perhaps even on long term storage like tape drives. However it collapsed many tiny outputs into one large output, which reduces the size of the UTXO set for everyone.
Here's a quick recap. Bitcoin has two types of costly data storage.
1) The block chain. Someone, somewhere, has to keep every transaction ever made, forever. However, whilst today that means "everyone who runs a full node", in future, it will mean "people who explicitly choose to" and every other node will be a pruning node - old data in the chain gets deleted. One can imagine that in a world where Bitcoin is tremendously successful there will be many organizations will to archive a data structure of such importance. Perhaps the Library of Congress
2) The unspent output set. Every full node has to maintain this, what's more, they must maintain it in high-speed storage. When a tx creates outputs this set grows, and when they claim outputs with inputs, it shrinks.
We can see then that whilst transactions like the named one are quite large, in the distant future only a small number of parties must store it, perhaps even on long term storage like tape drives. However it collapsed many tiny outputs into one large output, which reduces the size of the UTXO set for everyone.
I think this is flaw in the network protocol, and many blocks are too big because of this.
There is only one solution: ban SatoshiDice.
There is only one solution: ban SatoshiDice.
You can't ban anyone in Bitcoin as long as there is just one miner who will validate transactions originating from their address. And you especially can't ban anyone if you don't know their addresses.
Looks to be exactly how camolist explained it, a consolidation transaction, possibly never even leaving the wallet they were in before but all being sent to a specific BTC address for accounting purposes, or if he needs to pay someone else from that specific address, also for accounting or verification of sender purposes.
I do this myself frequently within my "hot wallet" and also prior to sending to any cold storage addresses. Personally I do this to simplify my personal accounting, as I try to keep track of how many coins I have spendable from which addresses. I can only guess this is what the owner of these TX's is doing, assuming it was in fact a send back to himself.
I'm curious if this would be considered best practice? Or if for any reason I am unaware of it could actually be harmful?
How exactly does this help with downsizing the block chain? As I understand it any given (standard?) transaction adds just the complete list of its inputs and it's output. The input transactions are already confirmed (assuming the client does not let you try and spend them beforehand) so the coins origin prior to their input to the users wallet does not need to be recorded again in this newest transaction. Now that I think about it, in fact the practice of consolidating your balance may actually have the net opposite effect, in that instead of combining your inputs into the tx where you intend to send coins to another user, you first create another uneccesary transaction to yourself. Is the savings in your actual outgoing transaction worth the addition of the consolidation transaction?
I'm uncertain in regards to pruning the existing block chain as well. Taken literally does that mean removing data from the current block chain? Is the ability to trace the complete history of coins not more important?
I do this myself frequently within my "hot wallet" and also prior to sending to any cold storage addresses. Personally I do this to simplify my personal accounting, as I try to keep track of how many coins I have spendable from which addresses. I can only guess this is what the owner of these TX's is doing, assuming it was in fact a send back to himself.
I'm curious if this would be considered best practice? Or if for any reason I am unaware of it could actually be harmful?
How exactly does this help with downsizing the block chain? As I understand it any given (standard?) transaction adds just the complete list of its inputs and it's output. The input transactions are already confirmed (assuming the client does not let you try and spend them beforehand) so the coins origin prior to their input to the users wallet does not need to be recorded again in this newest transaction. Now that I think about it, in fact the practice of consolidating your balance may actually have the net opposite effect, in that instead of combining your inputs into the tx where you intend to send coins to another user, you first create another uneccesary transaction to yourself. Is the savings in your actual outgoing transaction worth the addition of the consolidation transaction?
I'm uncertain in regards to pruning the existing block chain as well. Taken literally does that mean removing data from the current block chain? Is the ability to trace the complete history of coins not more important?
* Digigami shrugs.. need another beer.. At least it does encourage users to get used to paying higher fees to move all these small balances around.
Banning is wholey silly.
Come another two years or so, that volume of bitdust will be standard.. if the network cannot manage it now, it needs to be fixed, and with this happening now while volume is still low, it isn't a crisis. But honestly it doesn't seem like much of an issue.
Come another two years or so, that volume of bitdust will be standard.. if the network cannot manage it now, it needs to be fixed, and with this happening now while volume is still low, it isn't a crisis. But honestly it doesn't seem like much of an issue.
Also they paid .195 btc to send that transaction..... Quite a nice fee....
And it consolidated a bunch of small transactions (making pruning of the old ones possible...)
So I'm not sure what the complaint about this transaction is?
And it consolidated a bunch of small transactions (making pruning of the old ones possible...)
So I'm not sure what the complaint about this transaction is?
Maybe I'm missing something but I'm seeing lots of inputs valued 5 usd and up. Are we really calling that dust now? This is all getting silly
Just like governments banned Wikileaks. Hmm go look up decentralization. Never mind you guys just like to click a link: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=decentralization
I think this is flaw in the network protocol, and many blocks are too big because of this.
There is only one solution: ban SatoshiDice.
There is only one solution: ban SatoshiDice.
https://blockexplorer.com/tx/f887475e325335df87da6b008c0190bd3034c1e1eb4eb021946701f40a66e2e9
The same input address is listed over and over again with a bunch of bitdust. Each piece of bitdust has its own sig. Exactly why is this? Can't the client consolidate this as the sum off all these input values, say 20 bitcoin for or so, and just publish the address once with one sig and the full 20 btc value instead of a bunch repeated over and over as dust? Is this some poorly written btc software banging around out there? Is there room for improvement? This block seems unnecessarily large b/c of this.
Explanations?
The same input address is listed over and over again with a bunch of bitdust. Each piece of bitdust has its own sig. Exactly why is this? Can't the client consolidate this as the sum off all these input values, say 20 bitcoin for or so, and just publish the address once with one sig and the full 20 btc value instead of a bunch repeated over and over as dust? Is this some poorly written btc software banging around out there? Is there room for improvement? This block seems unnecessarily large b/c of this.
Explanations?
Jump to: