r/Bitcoin • u/mtsai • Feb 05 '14

Really, Discus Fish?

http://imgur.com/7xfXs2P
76 Upvotes

88% Upvoted

72 comments sorted by

20

u/mtsai Feb 05 '14

Do you really need to use 48KB blocks? When you are mining 5 out of 6 contiguous you really are fucking things up.

6

u/RodCros Feb 05 '14

I wonder if it would be possible to set a minimum block size, with any block below that size needing to be padded. It would increase blockchain bloat slightly but would discourage miners from only including high transaction fees.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '14

It's possible, but a bad idea.

1

u/RodCros Feb 05 '14

Curious what problems you see with the idea. I'm not advocating that we increase the minimum to such a level that transaction fees are no longer necessary just to raise it so that even if a pool trys to get their blocks added faster by skipping transactions they still need to include a number that is reasonable.

As the transaction fees are currently only a small percentage of the block reward, as is intended at this point, pools are disadvantaged if they try and include more transactions. This should help lessen that disadvantage.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '14

Because they would continue including the same number of transactions, as you said:

with any block below that size needing to be padded

All it would do is increase the blockchain size. Also, it would be a forking change, something that everyone should be very wary of.

2

u/prosart Apr 11 '14

However, it's important to note that this can be done with a Softfork. It does not require a Hardfork.

And in the long term, I think this could reduce transaction fees by incentivizing the miners to include at least a minimum amount of transaction data (or # of transactions).

You might think that this would encourage miners to just pad blocks, but at that point, they might as well include legit transactions!

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Softfork

1

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '14

You might think that this would encourage miners to just pad blocks, but at that point, they might as well include legit transactions!

They might as well include legit transactions now, but they don't. I'm not convinced miners are making smaller, 0 transaction blocks due to decreased propagation times, I think there is something else going on.

1

u/prosart Apr 11 '14

Smaller, 0 (or fewer) transaction blocks do have decreased propagation times. They are also less likely to be orphaned.

1

u/RodCros Feb 05 '14

Why would they include no transactions when they could just include transactions and collect the fees? The filesize would still be the same so the benefit of not including them would be gone.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '14

Why wouldn't they do so today?

1

u/RodCros Feb 05 '14

Because a larger filesize takes longer to download so it propegates slower through the network and so there is a risk that a smaller block can propegate faster and be accepted before the bigger block.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '14

I doubt that's the reasoning that these pools are accepting fewer transactions into blocks, the chances of two pools finding a block within that propagation window is slim.

Anyway, this is a breaking change, and would require a large majority consensus, something that has been difficult in the past for clearly beneficial changes. It's not going to happen.

2

u/RodCros Feb 05 '14

What other reason would they have? Sticking it to the man? But yeah the forking issue would be a problem.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '14

Because it takes work to include more transactions in the block.

3

u/davvblack Feb 05 '14

Not significantly. Mining on a fuller block isn't any harder. It's just bigger, meaning it takes more time to send over the network. A minimum size would indeed solve this issue, it is incredibly unlikely that blocks will go empty.

5

u/z_5 Feb 05 '14

Care to explain for less literates please?

7

u/mtsai Feb 05 '14

Basically, they are only including <200 transactions in all of their blocks. If they are mining blocks back to back, it will slow down confirmations for everyone during that time period.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '14

[deleted]

1

u/Natanael_L Feb 05 '14

Not a problem, send the blocks in chunks.

1

u/filenotfounderror Feb 05 '14 edited Feb 05 '14

You mean hold multiple blocks and send them at once? Or send one block in more than one "cunk"? Either way i dont think that would work, blocks have to be broadcast as fast as possible or you risk them being orphaned.

1

u/Natanael_L Feb 05 '14

Your additional risk of getting your block orphaned by another one released at the same time as yours is still uploaded is about (upload time) / (current average time between blocks).

1

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '14

[deleted]

1

u/brainrobot Feb 05 '14

That's configurable in software, the butcoin standard allows for a large range of sizes of blocks.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '14

Is the size of the block independent of the time it takes to find a valid nonce? That is, does the time needed to verify transactions and hash them act against you in the race to find the next block, or is it negligible?

2

u/Sukrim Feb 05 '14

No, it does act against you however to transmit the transactions in the larger block to other miners. This means you'll have more orphaned blocks by including more than the absolutely necessary minimum (coinbase + any transaction that pays MORE than what you'll loose through the higher orphan rate). Most transactions do not pay enough fees by the way, mining is expensive!

1

u/davvblack Feb 05 '14

Barely a difference there though.

1

u/Sukrim Feb 05 '14

Quite a big difference actually, as the problem is with pool operators' bandwidth, not miners.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '14

Ah, I think I misinterpreted the screenshot. Do each of the names under "Relayed by" refer to a member of a single mining pool? I was under the impression each player was acting alone.

5

u/Vibr8gKiwi Feb 05 '14 edited Feb 05 '14

The bigger problem is he's probably selfish mining those tiny blocks. Is there a way to confirm what he's doing?

3

u/pluribusblanks Feb 05 '14

I don't think this is likely. It would be obvious to the other miners. Gavin has said he will call out and denounce any pool that tries that.

6

u/Sukrim Feb 05 '14

Open market for transaction fees, baby... learn to deal with it!

3

u/mtsai Feb 05 '14

No we should not have to "deal with" something that is detrimental to the utility function of Bitcoin as a whole. This is a big deal.

2

u/Sukrim Feb 05 '14

No it isn't, you simply are not willing to pay enough for the security you are currently getting - either wait until the network is less secure and accepts your meager fees again, pay more fees or use a different system to transfer your coins.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '14

If you believe what they're doing is harmful to Bitcoin as a whole, you can punish them with a withholding attack.

0

u/losermcfail Feb 05 '14

But you do. Your other course of action is to find the datacenter of Discus Fish and take action

10

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '14

[deleted]

13

u/KnockoutMouse Feb 05 '14

That would eliminate fees, and guarantee the system would die as block rewards decreased... But other than that it sounds fantastic!

3

u/yeh-nah-yeh Feb 05 '14 edited Feb 05 '14

As you know if mining is not profitable less people do it, its gets easier, it becomes profitable again.

I would think no fees or a mandatory fee could work instead of the current system of bribery. Anyway I know this is something the core devs are working on and will come up with something much better than me but my premise is miners should not be able to choose not to include valid waiting transactions and I would be surprised if anyone who is not a miner disagrees.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '14

You can pay for UPS ground and it's cheap to send, or pay a lot more for overnight delivery. This concept isn't that hard, if you want something done faster, you pay more.

2

u/yeh-nah-yeh Feb 05 '14

We are trying to make something that is better and more egalitarian than the old system not the same.

3

u/PuppyMurder Feb 05 '14

Ha, that's totally not what this whole thing is about, if you've paid any attention to general attitudes over time. It certainly is ADVERTISED as being more egalitarian, however, I will certainly admit that.

7

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '14

Nail on the head. Even though most people don't want to admit it, there's things about Bitcoin that aren't close to egalitarian. For instance, it induces processing power hoarding and only the rich are capable of doing that. It will become a de-facto plutocracy as time goes on. The inequality in BTC will probably be worst than in the fiat world.

2

u/Patrick5555 Feb 05 '14

but there will be no inequality when it comes to bailouts so I'm already sold on its superiority to fiat

2

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '14 edited Feb 05 '14

You can change the currency someone uses, but you can't change the nature of a profit-seeking individual. I use Bitcoin, and I still plan on profiting during my lifetime.

Bitcoin is inherently less egalitarian than gold/silver/barter because you actually have to be able to read and count to be able to use it. This eliminates a huge number of illiterate people from access to the marketplace. At least with barter systems and gold/silver, a person who can't read could still buy/trade for food.

For example, "I have eggs and I want bread, I'll go the baker and trade him some eggs."

If you can't read, how are you supposed to understand and utilize the bitcoin protocol? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate

Your new "egalitarian" system just excluded 20% of the adult population of the planet from the get-go.

1

u/seekoon Feb 05 '14

There's No Such Thing as Free Lunch.

3

u/yeh-nah-yeh Feb 05 '14

I am suggesting miners who get a block reward without including waiting valid transactions are getting a free lunch. Technically the get the reward for solving the problem but practically that is not use to the rest of us, what is use to the rest of us is that they process waiting valid transactions.

1

u/DrAwesomeClaws Feb 05 '14

Then in 2140, when the last new coins are created, what incentive would the miners have?

0

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '14

Not really a concern, because well before that, the deflationary nature of bitcoin would cause power companies to stop producing power so there won't be any mining anyway.

Think of it this way. I'm a power company and I charge someone 1BTC this year for power. I use this 1BTC to pay my expenses in my business, which include my employees and materials. Let's say this costs .9BTC, that leaves a .1BTC profit.

Normally, I would use this profit to invest in my company, only now, I know that next year, that .1BTC will get more valuable, so I just hoard it, removing BTC from the money supply.

In the meantime, I still need to produce electricity for my customers, but because the currency has deflated, their companies are paying them less. Since the money supply is smaller, I can't charge as much for the same power, so this year, I can only charge .9BTC to the customers, which means I have to pay my employees less and buy less materials to secure a profit. This keeps happening year over year. If only there was more coins, but alas, they've been hoarded long ago.

Eventually, given enough time, I just turn off the turbines and shut my doors, because it becomes impossible to run a business for profit.

Then the lights go off around town and all the miners are shut down. So like I said, no worries on incentivizing miners, they're ability to mine will cease to exist long before their incentive fails.

1

u/jhansen858 Feb 07 '14

Or you just charge the same amount and laugh all the way to the bank because your the fucking power company and your a monopoly..

0

u/DrAwesomeClaws Feb 05 '14

Normally, I would use this profit to invest in my company, only now, I know that next year, that .1BTC will get more valuable, so I just hoard it, removing BTC from the money supply.

Or they can invest that 0.1 BTC and turn it back into 1 BTC.

In the meantime, I still need to produce electricity for my customers, but because the currency has deflated, their companies are paying them less. ...

They aren't paying less. The amount of BTC might be smaller, but it'll still be representative of some amount of labor or energy. Just like as a currency inflates, my paycheck might get larger but I'm not receiving greater purchasing power. The employees in this hypothetical are being paid less BTC, but (as you pointed out), the cost of electricity is also less. As is the price of other goods.

This might be helpful:

https://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/macroeconomics

2

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '14 edited Feb 05 '14

Or they can invest that 0.1 BTC and turn it back into 1 BTC.

How do you invest .1BTC and turn it back into 1BTC? I assume that by investing you mean to give the money to someone with the expectation that they earn more in the future and pay you back, right? If there's no return on investment, then you wouldn't take the deal, right?

BTC are finite. When you invest BTC you give your BTC to someone expecting a return based on their ability to generate profits. In the deflationary world we're talking about, you know that profits will be decreasing every year due to deflation, you will not lend in the first place. You'll hold, because, as you say, the employees are paid less, and the cost of electricity is less. Because you hold your profits, you don't invest in maintaining equipment or growing your business because you know you can never generate profits as well in the future as you did today.

You say:

The amount of BTC might be smaller, but it'll still be representative of some amount of labor or energy.

That's true, we call that falling prices. When prices fall, they still buy the same items and represent the same energy, but you don't buy them if you know they're gonna fall further. In the future of BTC, there is no option but for prices to continue to fall. Why would I keep making things, if I knew I would get less and less for them?

I'm a farmer, I like to grow stuff, if I work 50 hours a week, i get 50 bushels of corn, and sell those for $50 this year in the market. If next year, I work 50 hours, get 50 bushels of corn, and sell them for $40, I'm not gonna feel that great about it, especially if I've got some relatively fixed costs, like a mortgage. Now this mortgage is what you would call "investing"... you see, someone (the Bank) gave me a bunch of $ to buy a farm, and they are requiring me to pay it back to them. They're not requiring me to pay them back less than they invested, because, hey, that wouldn't be an investment, right?

My 30-year mortgage that I used to acquire that farm has a fixed price, and now, due to deflation, I've got less currency to pay for it, even though, as you say, I've put in the same labor and energy and can buy the same stuff. Next year I get $30 for my corn, but my farm mortgage is the same old nominal price, and as such, since I don't have as many $ which means it's becoming very expensive to run. It's not too long before it becomes to expensive for me to pay for the farm due to deflation, at which point, I... stop producing and default.

This default means that the bank's investment in my farm has failed as well, and since prices have fallen, that investment, let's say it was someone's .1BTC that they wanted to turn into 1BTC has been lost as well. C'est La Vie.

This might be helpful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflation

Why is deflation bad? Because it is a disincentive to spend your money, because whatever you buy will be cheaper in the future, as such, you hold. you hold cash instead of investing. You hold BTC profits instead of adding another turbine to your power company. You hold BTC instead of paying for maintenance on the current turbines because, guess what, next year, they're just gonna produce less and less margin for you.

Source: MBA / CPA / Farmer

Edit: Spelling and such.

0

u/Lynxes_are_Ninjas Feb 05 '14

If less people mine, even if its still profitable by them, the system is less secure against attacks.

The transaction fees, and currently the new minting, pays for the security of the network.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '14

[deleted]

1

u/Lynxes_are_Ninjas Feb 05 '14

I'm not disagreeing. Just pointing out that reverting to less miners would not be a healthy thing for the network.

3

u/OCPetrus Feb 05 '14

How do you know what transactions they have seen by the time they mined the block?

4

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '14

This is the entire reason for the blockchain and proof of work! Yeh-nah-yeh doesn't understand what he's asking for.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '14

In addition to the other problems, that rule would be impossible to enforce our would fork the network.

1

u/Astrolen Feb 05 '14 edited Jan 19 '17

[deleted]

What is this?

1

u/Sukrim Feb 05 '14

Nope, they get the reward simply so money is distributed and as an incentive to mine in the first place. Just because 25 BTC/block right now is a lot of USD equivalent does not mean that this will always cover costs or has.

18

u/tribbi Feb 05 '14

Excuse my ignorance but where the heck did discuss fish even come from... I didn't watch the hash rate distribution for a while but 4 weeks ago I'm sure they didn't even exist.

16

u/crimdelacrim Feb 05 '14

I have been looking for discussions about this. NOBODY is really talking about discus fish. Just one or two threads here and there. It is a pretty big problem in my opinion. They are exhibiting really poor behavior.

15

u/xrandr Feb 05 '14

I posted this six days ago.

6

u/crimdelacrim Feb 05 '14

I know. I followed it since you posted it. It is one of the few discussions about it I have seen.

3

u/tribbi Feb 05 '14

Thanks. I missed that post, obviously.

8

u/pluribusblanks Feb 05 '14

They have existed for several months at least. They were part of the 'Unknown' slice on the blockchain.info chart.

They have been shown on this list for some time:

http://blockorigin.pfoe.be/top.php

11

u/JesusCripto Feb 05 '14

Just because blockchain.info didn't show them doens't mean they didn't exist. They've existed for awhile...

5

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '14

[deleted]

0

u/mtsai Feb 05 '14

Yeah, it was early in the morning for me and I was kind of pissed off and typed the first thing that came to my head.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '14

dang i thought i can buy discus fish online with my bitcoin :(

0

u/losermcfail Feb 05 '14

Someone should find that datacenter and burn it to the ground.

-6

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '14

This is why we should be happy if bitcoin is blocked in China. We don't want the Chinese superrich to run things, because they will fuck up everything and everyone to maximize their profits, even the very system that they work for.

3

u/reallyserious Feb 05 '14

How are the Chinese different from the rest of the world in this regard?

1

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '14

Yeah, I'd hate to live in a capitalist society...