This is a difficult statement to resolve properly. How does one define malicious? Malicious to what aim? Doing one thing for one reason requires completely different standards of judgment when compared to the same thing done for a different reason. The breaching of civility in any worthwhile conflict is inevitable, the only hope we have is to not unnecessarily hurt others, using our best judgement.
...it's already been done. Core has already implemented a rolling bloom filter to make sure we don't request the same transactions twice. You get extra points though for coming up with the idea yourself !Bloomfilter for every transaction, not just blocks
I got this idea yesterday to optimize normal transaction traffic on a node. It will most likely not work for some fundamental reason that I haven’t understood or a premise I got wrong. It might have been proposed by somebody else before, but I’m not aware of that.
I know the normal traffic on a node is not considered to be a bottle neck issue, but it would still be nice to reduce it.
It’s 100% inspired by Xthin, and I hope @Peter Tschipper would take a look at it and give a comment, but you can all join in to kill the idea. The sooner it’s killed, the less time wasted on a useless idea.
I am/was a programmer, but I have never looked at the bitcoin code. I have never worked on an open source project, and I will not be able to write the code for this idea.
These are two important premises for the idea to work. One or two of them are probably wrong
1) A node sends the same transaction to several nodes that allready have received it.
2) A node receives the same transaction several times from different nodes.
The idea is this:
A node first send a part of a hash of the transaction (That’s what’s done in Bloomfilters, right? The length of the part of the hash is long enough to make it statistically pretty unique. I havent thought about collisions yet.)
If the receiving node hasn’t seen this transaction yet, it asks for the full transaction and gets it.
And that’s pretty much it.
Please kill the idea, not me guys
I think you have a good point, the forced fake "high-road" stuff that we see is just not effective, and frankly comes across as totally disingenuous. As a general moral rule I think it's obvious that one no longer gives benefit-of-the-doubt to a person with a proven track record of malfeasance, and to demand to be treated with such benefit-of-the-doubt is the very first tactic such a bad actor employs.
I'm not going to get into specifics because I'm well-aware that amoral paranoid /r/bitcoin sociopaths lurk this thread on the reg, but there is somebody who has popped up on reddit fairly recently who sounds alot like cypherdoc to me.
Of course it is, but you do not need to invalidate old tx format, just add a new one: the old one may coexists.
I'm not so sure of that: if it's incentivated to reduce the UTXO, in the long run every tx would be smaller since there would be less inputs to choose from.
for me personally this is accurate.
core doesn't get it.... their silly attempt at playing with the TX fee is truly BAD.
It's this fact that goes against the idea that it's market forces that are holding segwit back.
With any luck the FBI will very shortly be too busy dismantling the CIA's drug and human trafficking rings, and the CIA will be too busy being arrested for either agency to pay much attention to Bitcoin.At least two friends of the CIA as speakers.
I'm shocked that Barry and his two CFR board members weren't invited. Especially as one of them is in Davos anyway.At least two friends of the CIA as speakers.
To be honest I'm not convinced it will do anything to reduce utxo whatsoever, apart from maybe some outlier cases where people are unnecessarily creating extra outputs for no good reason. The reason is because the sender of a tx doesn't just arbitrarily decide what inputs he has and what outputs he needs to create to send money to the correct parties, and while there are behaviors that maybe could slightly streamline these figures, the pricing difference between inputs and outputs doesn't inherently create substitution, because they are literally the most logically extreme example of goods with no substitution effect. Unless there is some utility left on the table to consolidate outputs, eventually the bottleneck becomes the cost of outputs anyway, and the utxo-shrinking effect is no different than just higher costs across the board deterring usage.
