📅 Original date posted:2012-05-28
📝 Original message:One of the issues here though is that it would be nice if miners published
their own tx rules -- it might be hard to impute them from data.
I had started a thread about this on bitcoin.org some time ago, and I don't
recall what the general outcome was.
I had imagined an open service whereby a miner could publish a short string
in their conbase tying to the service and the service would have different
metadata, including the miner's transaction guarantees.
We offered to host this before, and would still be willing to host such a
service.
Peter
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 7:52 AM, Stefan Thomas <moon at justmoon.de> wrote:
> Zooko is spot on - slower confirmations will give people a reason to set
> higher fees. As soon as fees reach a level where they matter, even
> botnet operators will be looking into ways of including transactions for
> some extra profit.
>
> In the meantime slightly slower confirmations aren't a problem. Consider
> that even if it takes four blocks to get your transaction included
> instead of one, once it is included, you still benefit from every new
> block in terms of security. So if you're looking for six confirmations
> for example, even a three block delay will only be a 50% delay for you.
> And of course there are techniques for instant transactions which
> continue to be refined and improved.
>
> As for the proposed solutions: Punishing 1-tx blocks is complete and
> utter nonsense. It's trivial to include a bogus second transaction.
>
> Any additional challenges towards miners like hashes of the previous
> block are at best useless. If I was running a botnet, I'd just grab that
> hash from a website (pretty good chance Blockchain.info will have it :P)
> or mining pool or wherever and keep going undeterred. At worst they may
> affect scalability one day. You might imagine a peer-to-peer network of
> miners who for cost reasons don't download all blocks anymore, but
> verify only a percentage of them at random. They might then exchange
> messages about invalid blocks including a proof (invalid tx, merkle
> branch) why the block is invalid. This is just one idea, the point is
> that assumptions about what a legitimate miner looks like may not always
> hold in the future.
>
> Finally, there is an ethical aspect as well. If a miner wishes not to
> include my transaction that is his choice. He has no more an obligation
> to sell his service to me than I have to buy it from him. If I really,
> really want him to include my transaction I will have to offer to pay more.
>
> If we as developers think that confirmations are too slow or that more
> blocks should include transactions, then the right measures would be:
>
> - Educating users about the relationship between confirmation speed and
> fees
> - Raising the default transaction fee
>
> Every market has a supply curve, so it is economically to be expected
> that there will be some miners who don't include transactions, simply
> because they are at that end of the supply curve where it is not worth
> it for them to sell their service. All markets must have a certain
> tension - there must be miners who don't include transactions for there
> to be users who want their transactions included more quickly. In other
> words there must be somebody not confirming if confirmations are to have
> value. If you interfere with that all you'll accomplish is keep
> transaction fees below market level, which will make the transition from
> inflation-financed hashing to transaction-financed hashing more painful
> and disruptive.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Stefan
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Live Security Virtual Conference
> Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
> threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
> will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
> threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
--
Peter J. Vessenes
CEO, CoinLab
M: 206.595.9839
Skype: vessenes
Google+ <https://plus.google.com/112885659993091300749>;
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20120528/23cf542d/attachment.html>;
Peter Vessenes [ARCHIVE] /
npub1ez…6r8pt
2023-06-07 10:10:12
in reply to nevent1q…xq5g
Author Public Key
npub1ezg54d03a7unwu0fckmlugxulukrg06x7jzx4engngxfg79sfcqsn6r8ptPublished at
2023-06-07 10:10:12Event JSON
{
"id": "3374349e9d9f0c8e3674d612f8006476635b1930e0f214742e2ca040aabeba82",
"pubkey": "c8914ab5f1efb93771e9c5b7fe20dcff2c343f46f4846ae6689a0c9478b04e01",
"created_at": 1686132612,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"bea123cfa1dde96d98089cdcf953f77564e34363cd7b11c4a3504634664d4aa2",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"8046054ff9b8135e66552660c44b131bfb8e1dab1abe22f2583d31492d8bacde",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"49f07bd32c0108a2903a0fa59f904ed312e0ea427d3269eb5fa910eb4a9e22c4"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2012-05-28\n📝 Original message:One of the issues here though is that it would be nice if miners published\ntheir own tx rules -- it might be hard to impute them from data.\n\nI had started a thread about this on bitcoin.org some time ago, and I don't\nrecall what the general outcome was.\n\nI had imagined an open service whereby a miner could publish a short string\nin their conbase tying to the service and the service would have different\nmetadata, including the miner's transaction guarantees.\n\nWe offered to host this before, and would still be willing to host such a\nservice.\n\nPeter\n\nOn Sat, May 26, 2012 at 7:52 AM, Stefan Thomas \u003cmoon at justmoon.de\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Zooko is spot on - slower confirmations will give people a reason to set\n\u003e higher fees. As soon as fees reach a level where they matter, even\n\u003e botnet operators will be looking into ways of including transactions for\n\u003e some extra profit.\n\u003e\n\u003e In the meantime slightly slower confirmations aren't a problem. Consider\n\u003e that even if it takes four blocks to get your transaction included\n\u003e instead of one, once it is included, you still benefit from every new\n\u003e block in terms of security. So if you're looking for six confirmations\n\u003e for example, even a three block delay will only be a 50% delay for you.\n\u003e And of course there are techniques for instant transactions which\n\u003e continue to be refined and improved.\n\u003e\n\u003e As for the proposed solutions: Punishing 1-tx blocks is complete and\n\u003e utter nonsense. It's trivial to include a bogus second transaction.\n\u003e\n\u003e Any additional challenges towards miners like hashes of the previous\n\u003e block are at best useless. If I was running a botnet, I'd just grab that\n\u003e hash from a website (pretty good chance Blockchain.info will have it :P)\n\u003e or mining pool or wherever and keep going undeterred. At worst they may\n\u003e affect scalability one day. You might imagine a peer-to-peer network of\n\u003e miners who for cost reasons don't download all blocks anymore, but\n\u003e verify only a percentage of them at random. They might then exchange\n\u003e messages about invalid blocks including a proof (invalid tx, merkle\n\u003e branch) why the block is invalid. This is just one idea, the point is\n\u003e that assumptions about what a legitimate miner looks like may not always\n\u003e hold in the future.\n\u003e\n\u003e Finally, there is an ethical aspect as well. If a miner wishes not to\n\u003e include my transaction that is his choice. He has no more an obligation\n\u003e to sell his service to me than I have to buy it from him. If I really,\n\u003e really want him to include my transaction I will have to offer to pay more.\n\u003e\n\u003e If we as developers think that confirmations are too slow or that more\n\u003e blocks should include transactions, then the right measures would be:\n\u003e\n\u003e - Educating users about the relationship between confirmation speed and\n\u003e fees\n\u003e - Raising the default transaction fee\n\u003e\n\u003e Every market has a supply curve, so it is economically to be expected\n\u003e that there will be some miners who don't include transactions, simply\n\u003e because they are at that end of the supply curve where it is not worth\n\u003e it for them to sell their service. All markets must have a certain\n\u003e tension - there must be miners who don't include transactions for there\n\u003e to be users who want their transactions included more quickly. In other\n\u003e words there must be somebody not confirming if confirmations are to have\n\u003e value. If you interfere with that all you'll accomplish is keep\n\u003e transaction fees below market level, which will make the transition from\n\u003e inflation-financed hashing to transaction-financed hashing more painful\n\u003e and disruptive.\n\u003e\n\u003e Cheers,\n\u003e\n\u003e Stefan\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e ------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e Live Security Virtual Conference\n\u003e Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and\n\u003e threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions\n\u003e will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware\n\u003e threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e Bitcoin-development mailing list\n\u003e Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\n\u003e https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development\n\u003e\n\n\n\n-- \nPeter J. Vessenes\nCEO, CoinLab\nM: 206.595.9839\nSkype: vessenes\nGoogle+ \u003chttps://plus.google.com/112885659993091300749\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20120528/23cf542d/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "e8e24efbb92ac6c0d08a9ceaa648f6f98d90bb9ea8c749b77f764cdc664e575507efc454372696d871fbb6cfab2c865091667f9cddbc2c993386c3a1a7b47a02"
}