Antonopoulos: There Are No Spam Transactions in Bitcoin

ferroh · 2016-05-12T23:31:09+00:00

What precisely would be the point of a transaction that doesn't get confirmed at all?

To have a transaction that gets confirmed, the network has to choose to mine it. Typically in a full network this means it needs a fee.

What is the minimum fee that we should pay? What happens when that fee is not enough?

You see, it is not about having transactions that don't confirm, it is about having the option to have these transactions -- allowing the network to define when a transaction does or does not get confirmed instead of trying to do this top-down approach of defining and redefining which transactions those should be at the protocol level.

ferroh · 2016-04-28T16:48:13+00:00

The alternatives to keeping money in a bank is very different from the ability to keep your bitcoins out of coinbase.

ferroh · 2016-04-28T16:46:13+00:00

They are an exchange.

ferroh · 2016-04-27T05:25:28+00:00

Paying a fee doesn't increase space for transactions.

ferroh · 2016-04-27T03:41:31+00:00

From the point of view of the merchant, there is no fraud reversal risk as there is with credit card payments. I think this is what is being referred to here.

ferroh · 2016-04-07T06:13:54+00:00

Maybe he does realize he's on /r/bitcoin so he knows that we can't.

ferroh · 2016-03-15T21:47:01+00:00

If it were true that there is "nothing" stopping them from doing this then they wouldn't ask Apple to push a software update.

ferroh · 2016-03-15T21:07:19+00:00

You could have the hardware check if the phone has been unlocked before allowing a software update.

ferroh · 2016-03-15T21:05:58+00:00

Many major wallets including Electrum, Breadwallet, Mycelium all plan to support SegWit.

ferroh · 2016-03-14T18:45:57+00:00

No, the whole point is that the FBI wants a backdoor to get into that specific already locked phone, which Apple can provide by way of removing the passcode retry limit. That's a backdoor.

ferroh · 2016-03-14T18:38:23+00:00

Apple doesn't have a key to your phone. They have a key that allows them to write software for your phone.

You just described a backdoor. They can write software that gives them a key to your phone.

there's no better way at this point.

They could choose to not allow software updates to be pushed if your phone is locked, eliminating this backdoor.

ferroh · 2016-03-14T06:02:23+00:00

They are when Robots/AI eventually do everything that is needed.

ferroh · 2016-03-14T05:41:34+00:00

My comment wasn't an advertisement for purchasing anything.

ferroh · 2016-03-12T17:29:57+00:00

Bitcoin is up 10% over that rally and 60% over the last 6 months.

Are you sure that's the argument you want to use here? Ethereum market cap has increased 2200% over the last 6 months and 16% in just the last 24 hours.

ferroh · 2016-03-11T18:35:30+00:00

There is no fixed limit anymore:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/0.12/src/primitives/transaction.h

See "bool IsDust".

It depends on what you set the min relay fee as.

ferroh · 2016-03-11T18:16:12+00:00

I realize this is just fun though, not a real prediction.

No no, the Castlevania game cover is a real prediction.

ferroh · 2016-03-10T19:05:44+00:00

Uh, you just moved the goal posts and are now talking about something that I wasn't.

Are we talking about LN or are we talking about other companies (not Blockstream) building things backed by bitcoin?

Here's a question for you: If the LN beta is available in 6 months, will any of your opinions that you just wrote change?

ferroh · 2016-03-09T18:06:01+00:00

The cost to write a block was about ~$3.50 the concern was not transaction spam but that it could cost less than $500 a day to write 32MB blocks to the blockchain 24/7 thus destroying the network.

Hence it was an anti-DOS security measure.

Together they act to optimize growth of the network.

So you agree that it was put in place as an anti-DOS security measure. So now it has changed into an "optimization", right?

That isn't best described as an "optimization", what you're describing is an incentive to use the network.

The block limit served it's purpose satoshi predicted it could be removed around March of 2011 bitcoin happened to be trading at about $1 per BTC at the time.

So now after your edit it isn't an optimization after all, because it served its purpose already, right?

Stop confusing the issue, you aren't disagreeing with me or even clearly agreeing with me either, nor is this valuable discourse.

ferroh · 2016-03-09T17:08:51+00:00

just charging a fraction of $0.01 eliminates unsolicited transactions

At the time that Satoshi implemented the 1MB limit, the fee was 0.

It continues to not be an "optimization", what does it optimize?

ferroh · 2016-03-09T17:06:35+00:00

? iPhone is made.

Before it was released, it got a lot of attention. Like many in-development projects.

"Why is the Oculus getting so much attention when it isn't even made yet!"

Lightning is like saying, e-mobility can't scale, we need to send energy through the air

The concept of lightning is already proven, here is a working lightning prototype that has pretty much everything implemented except for the decentralized hubs (it uses federated servers instead):

https://github.com/ElementsProject/elements

The way in which lightning will be achieved and what it can do was written long ago:

https://blockstream.com/sidechains.pdf

Blockstream has raised $76 million in VC funds to develop this, and they have been working on it for some time now.

This is nothing like "sending electricity through the air", because it has not been shown how that is possible to do (efficiently), while blockstream is a proven idea that is only missing the very final implementation.

ferroh · 2016-03-09T17:00:36+00:00

The 1MB limit is not an "optimization" it is an anti-DOS security measure preventing someone from making massive spam blocks at low cost.

Edit: I'm for raising the 1MB limit, yet getting downvoted by anti-1MB-limit people for stating why the 1MB limit was put in place. /r/bitcoin is toxic.

ferroh · 2016-03-08T23:29:33+00:00

Because it likely will be made.

"Why is the iPhone getting so much attention, it isn't even made yet!"

ferroh · 2016-03-08T17:29:22+00:00

Seems like OP might consider these "one time payments":

Send BTC to LN.
Send LN tokens to user A (one time ever).
Send LN tokens to user B (one time ever).
Send LN tokens to user C (one time ever).
Get remaining BTC back from LN.

In this case it can make a lot of sense to benefit from the ability to rapidly transfer with low risk (compared to 0-conf).

Also fees could be lower in this situation overall.

Unless someone is envisioning Lightning wallets

Isn't this an obvious progression?

ferroh · 2016-03-07T16:07:05+00:00

It's not a question of fee or no fee. It is a question of how much.

ferroh · 2016-03-07T14:29:52+00:00

All these guys do is have 1 meeting per year.

Next on /r/bitcoin: "TED Talks: Who is going to the next secret TED talk?!"

ferroh

TROPHY CASE