Talk:Satoshi Dice: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Oops, forgot the timestamp |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==== DDoS claims ==== | ==== DDoS claims ==== | ||
[[User:Luke-Jr]] added an edit to this article calling it a DDoS attack [https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=SatoshiDice&oldid=32544 in this revision]. Since I found the edit opinionated and it had no citations to back the accusation, I edited it to a more neutral form [https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=SatoshiDice&oldid=33157 in this revision]. He later reverted my edit [https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=SatoshiDice&oldid=33337 in this revision] without revising the article. Since I have no intention of waging an edit war, I would like to hear Luke-Jr's opinion on the issue before making any further edits. Bitcoin doesn't need any more drama at this point. --[[User:Matoking|Matoking]] ([[User talk:Matoking|talk]]) 20:18, 5 December 2012 (GMT) | [[User:Luke-Jr]] added an edit to this article calling it a DDoS attack [https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=SatoshiDice&oldid=32544 in this revision]. Since I found the edit opinionated and it had no citations to back the accusation, I edited it to a more neutral form [https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=SatoshiDice&oldid=33157 in this revision]. He later reverted my edit [https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=SatoshiDice&oldid=33337 in this revision] without revising the article. Since I have no intention of waging an edit war, I would like to hear Luke-Jr's opinion on the issue before making any further edits. Bitcoin doesn't need any more drama at this point. --[[User:Matoking|Matoking]] ([[User talk:Matoking|talk]]) 20:18, 5 December 2012 (GMT) | ||
As to why I *don't* think SatoshiDice is a DDoS attack: | |||
* SatoshiDice doesn't break any rules upheld by Bitcoin network since it pays transaction fees as seen in transactions such as [http://blockchain.info/tx/e774dbfad35e1bf5d9571f8d808b9a934130cc93c0ba2c6d70041c0fbb7f8fee this] and [http://blockchain.info/tx/d37cf4c63d6f4e1fc7fbce5f1f52447d514dc364bb13959aa6171be3635ae32f that one]. More over, the transaction fees meet or exceed the minimum amount as described [[Transaction_fees|in this article]]. How can you claim SatoshiDice to be a DDoS attack when almost all of the miners deliberately include the transactions in their respective mined blocks since they don't "break" any rules? | |||
* How SatoshiDice handles its bets and transactions is explained [http://satoshidice.com/bits.php here] and the purported "transaction spam" is only a consequence of how the system works and how popular it has become, where the fault is more of poor design than malicious intent. The gamblers have knowledge of how the system works and just because it has become very active in terms of transaction throughput doesn't mean it has suddenly become a "DDoS attack" against the network. The same thing could be claimed about mixing services, which try to hide the transaction inputs' origins by shuffling them through multiple transactions, but since their effect on the size of blockchain is minimal at best, nobody seriously considers that they are malicious attacks. | |||
* The reason why SatoshiDice works at the moment is because a lot of people legitimately use it for gambling and a lot of miners agree to include the created transactions in their blocks, since the inclusion of transaction fees make it viable. If most of people are okay with the service's existence, then why is it a DDoS attack? --[[User:Matoking|Matoking]] ([[User talk:Matoking|talk]]) 09:59, 6 December 2012 (GMT) | |||
Revision as of 09:59, 6 December 2012
DDoS claims
User:Luke-Jr added an edit to this article calling it a DDoS attack in this revision. Since I found the edit opinionated and it had no citations to back the accusation, I edited it to a more neutral form in this revision. He later reverted my edit in this revision without revising the article. Since I have no intention of waging an edit war, I would like to hear Luke-Jr's opinion on the issue before making any further edits. Bitcoin doesn't need any more drama at this point. --Matoking (talk) 20:18, 5 December 2012 (GMT)
As to why I *don't* think SatoshiDice is a DDoS attack:
- SatoshiDice doesn't break any rules upheld by Bitcoin network since it pays transaction fees as seen in transactions such as this and that one. More over, the transaction fees meet or exceed the minimum amount as described in this article. How can you claim SatoshiDice to be a DDoS attack when almost all of the miners deliberately include the transactions in their respective mined blocks since they don't "break" any rules?
- How SatoshiDice handles its bets and transactions is explained here and the purported "transaction spam" is only a consequence of how the system works and how popular it has become, where the fault is more of poor design than malicious intent. The gamblers have knowledge of how the system works and just because it has become very active in terms of transaction throughput doesn't mean it has suddenly become a "DDoS attack" against the network. The same thing could be claimed about mixing services, which try to hide the transaction inputs' origins by shuffling them through multiple transactions, but since their effect on the size of blockchain is minimal at best, nobody seriously considers that they are malicious attacks.
- The reason why SatoshiDice works at the moment is because a lot of people legitimately use it for gambling and a lot of miners agree to include the created transactions in their blocks, since the inclusion of transaction fees make it viable. If most of people are okay with the service's existence, then why is it a DDoS attack? --Matoking (talk) 09:59, 6 December 2012 (GMT)