972500+ entries in 0.71s
Ukyo: to account for
that
pigeons: iz: SD can't control what fees
their users pay, and
the fees would have
to be very high
to negate
the negative effect
iz: or better yet, have
the fees influence
the % of payout slightly
davout: Luke-Jr: code a forl
that doesn't relay sd
txes, i'll use it, seriously.
Luke-Jr: iz: yes, miners would be forced
to raise fees high enough
that
the gamblers stopped playing basically
iz: can't SD just raise fees for
their
transactions?
mircea_popescu: what eats him, basically, is
that pretty much no miner cares about what he
thinks on
the matter.
Luke-Jr: Ukyo: yes, raising fees is
the "obvious" solution
Ukyo: txn fees are
there
to replace
the BTC as its goes away
Luke-Jr: Ukyo:
they're only
there
to DISCOURAGE spammers; which doesn't work for SD because it has an unlimited supply of idiot gamblers
to cover
the expense
Ukyo: Then raise
the fees
Namworld: and @davout: Ah well nevermind
then. Just a random proposal, would require rewriting of how bitcoin network accepts
transactions.
Luke-Jr: Ukyo: but
those fees were never meant
to cover
the ACTUAL COSTS of mining
the
transaction
dub: and dub has
to
throw away hardware
Luke-Jr: Namworld: every single node relaying
the block needs
to verify
the
transactions before it sends it on, so block propagation
time increases and blocks get orphaned
Ukyo: they are or were a large portion of
txn fees being paidout
mircea_popescu: dude, srsly. stop with all
the rationalization bullshit. just come out clean, say it.
they make money , you'd like some, you
think it's unfair etc.
Namworld: other
than verifying
the
transactions?
mircea_popescu: <jcpham> bitcoin is ruining freenode <<< it is a
testament
to bitcoin's state
that
this statement is
true when everyone knows how fucking ruined freenode was
to begin with.
Luke-Jr: awkorama: it also harms Bitcoin, reducing
the value of
them
Luke-Jr: awkorama: SD costs miners more
than
the fees cover
davout: Namworld:
this was already discussed back in 2010
davout: transactions have scripts,
that may or may not be more complex
than N addresses output
to M addresses with an optional
TX fee
jcpham: damn where did
the 99 users come from
Namworld: I know
there is no address balance currently
Namworld: but regular users could work on
the short version
davout: Namworld:
there is no such
thing as an address balance, you misunderstand
the way
transactions work
Namworld: and verify
them if you want
to
Namworld: The idea would be
to assume
that old data and lenght is accurate
dub: jcpham:
they pay for feeless
txns, or did
Ukyo: Namworld:
too.. pm :)
jcpham: got could pay for priority
txns
jcpham: i
think pools and miners should have
that option
awkorama: we just switched
to random
talk here
dub: THEY CAN IF
THERE IS CONCESUS
Namworld: We can probably have on
those every 10k blocks balance block some hash of
the previous blocks inserted, one for each. If someone cares
to verify
them, download
the historical data and check
those blocks
mircea_popescu: kakobreklaa ya, i seem
to recall
this incident in octomber last year...
dub: girls cant have cocks
too?
kakobreklaa: mircea_popescu i
think mtgox payes luke
to include
their
txes
awkorama: ohw is
that rational? don't
they get
transaction fees ?
dub: jcpham: were
talking about how mircea_popescu's cock is bigger
than davout's
mircea_popescu: because rational miners haven't been including its
transactions
jcpham: so what exactly is
the dicussion
davout: BREAKING NEWS : BITCOIN IS NON-TRIVIAL
TECHNOLOGY
awkorama: mircea_popescu: compared
to other currencies you mean ?
mircea_popescu: it's shocking
to see how little understood bitcoin is.
Luke-Jr: awkorama: if you delete
the history,
they're all 1 block long
jcpham: the merkles. use
the merkles
kakobreklaa: what
the hell are you babling about, you can mine offline for all we care
iz: kakobreklaa: please direct further questions about why you are wrong
towards luke or someone you might
take more seriously
than me
Luke-Jr: Namworld: and how will new nodes know
to
trust
that?
Namworld: We could probably have a new "balance" block created every 10k blocks lets say, stating all balances per address, and work with 2 or 3 such balance blocks and cut
the previous ones as we go on.
iz: how would
the old clients behave via
the new rules?
pigeons: no maxblocksize is not
there
to keep
the size of
the blockchain down, i
thought it was
there so blocks can be verified and propogated sanely
iz: how would
that work
then, dub?
mircea_popescu: Luke-Jr stop arguing like a stupid cunt. you say something, stand by it. where is
the motherfucking unanymous community!
iz: even if you had a majority of
the hashing power
iz: so.. if you have a majority of
the hashing power, but not a majority of clients.. even if you were
to change
the bitcoin client rules, you couldn't get
these new rules into
the block chain
jcpham: i'm not a fan of
the 5GB blockchain
Luke-Jr: Namworld: and yes,
the entire blockchain history must be kept forever right now
iz: so.. maybe someone can seriously clear something up for me.. when a block is validated by
the rest of
the bitcoin network..
that's done per bitcoin client on
the p2p network, right? not scaled with
that client's mining power in H/S
Luke-Jr: Namworld:
the unanimous bitcoin community does not agree.
dub: (because its no longer possible
to run a node on
the hardware I was running it on)
Namworld: plus we don't need
the whole blockchain history
to do
transactions, do we?
dub: I'm annoyed at SD
too but market forces will prevail
kakobreklaa: Luke-Jr, are you going
to shed
tears for us?
Namworld: blockchain is free
to use. For anything.
mircea_popescu: higher level services always
take
the cream, commodified supports suck it.
Luke-Jr: Namworld:
they're abusing
the blockchain for signalling
mircea_popescu: Namworld simply put,
the problem with sd
transactions is
that sd made 20k last month, in btc.
that's 400k usd at going rates.
Luke-Jr: 100% of Bitcoin users have agreed
to financial
transactions.
There is no other such agreement in
this context.
Namworld: I don't see
the problem with SD
transactions.
Namworld: I
think every x blocks,
there's some milestone achieved?
davout: Luke-Jr: I was under
the impression you put words in my mouth, i don't give a fuck about what goes into
the blockchain, be it financial
transactions or religious messages if you see what i mean
iz: or do you
think
those are
the same?
iz: there's a difference between
the majority of miners and
the majority of bitcoin clients on
the p2p network
awkorama: Luke-Jr: who
told you
that bitcoin is money ?
mircea_popescu: davout when you're poor your only practical avenue is
to speak "for
the community"
dub: kakobreklaa: yeah, I know
this
too, just cant help myself sometimes.
iz: dub: under
the scenario you described, a mining majority could produce a block
that a different majority of bitcoin clients rejects and disagrees with
Luke-Jr: mircea_popescu: anything other
than a direct financial
transaction is abusing
the communal agreement on what
the blockchain is for
Luke-Jr: mircea_popescu: Bitcoin users have agreed
to store FINANCIAL
TRANSFERS in
the blockchain. Not DNS. Not game activity. Not notifications.
iz: dub: it's not
the miners
that matter, it's
the bitcoin CLIENTS