The DoS can be mitigated with a blacklist or PoS.

Well Bitcoin has no central authority in case you were unaware.

That document is irrelevant to the consensus and PoR.

Re: mapping coinjoins, I assume you mean logging which inputs match with which outputs. This doesn't need an anti-incentive to prevent, you can simply make it so it isn't possible to log through the use of blind signatures.

Re: Bitcoin foundation, they aren't involved with this decision. All it takes is one person to implement it and upload the implementation

Re: delaying payments, no, it isn't possible to have consensus that way. You can check yourself, but anyone that's offline will need to trust someone. This means if the party they trust lies, consensus is broken.

It isn't a good case because miners don't need to be running a masternode, they can just lie about facilitating coinjoins. There is no way for nodes to audit them, so what is the point of a miner not working on the lying tallest chain which happens to be valid?

It doesn't require a hardfork if the coinjoin organizers aren't paid by block reward, but instead by those they are coinjoining for. Or better yet, it would be decentralized and no one would be paid at all.


The reason PoW works so well is because you can prove it. You can say "hey, here is the block header I have and here is it's hash. As you can see, it's hash is below the target, therefore I have created a block".

Coinjoin organization is a series of messages. You could (A) have a central authority see if the masternode is facilitating coinjoins and keep a log of behaving masternodes, or you could (B) just trust that the miner is right about whether the masternode was behaving at block X, or you could (C) trust your peers. Option A invokes trust in a central authority, option B allows miners to pay themselves (assuming they're operating as a masternode) every time and option C opens you up to sybil.

TL;DR PoR is an oxymoron because you can't construct a proof that you are offering a resource.

Your TX includes a hash each inputs associated TX. When you make a TX, you have inputs and outputs. The outputs being spent are inputs in your TX and they were part of the UTXO set until you spent them. Outputs are added to the UTXO. To find out if a TX is valid, your client checks the UTXO list and sees if your input it pointing to a TX belonging to it.

No it wasn't, microtransactions have worked out because the network hasn't grown to the point where they don't yet.


Along with that, 0-conf tx's are very risky because they are able to be doublespent trivially (or at least will be when Bitcoin matures).

There is no way to know whether an output belongs to Gox, or someone they gave money to (possibly a long time ago). Voting on whether you think an address belongs to Gox is a bit like voting on whether a dice will roll a certain number. Multiple guesses that have no basis don't add anything more than one guess without a basis.

Your millions of TX wont propagate unless you pay a fee for each.

How do you define emptying the wallet? What if I have $500 and want to spend $200 of it? Also, a "saving" transaction might not work if the attacker pushed a higher fee tx to the miners. Even if they didn't push to the miners, if they broadcast a transaction stealing your entire wallet, then you would somehow have to make your "saving" transaction be put in a block instead of theirs which was broadcast first.

Not unless you keep remaking the transaction.


The miner will do whatever his software choses to do. The smart thing for the miner is to include the higher fee tx. The network will not relay a double-spend though, so you need to push it directly to miners.
If it reaches the miners, yes.
You could send it directly to the miners, but most miners/pools go by monetary incentives and not ethics *cough* GHash *cough*.

Could we have a thread where people register to advertise, then they link to the post where their registration was approved? If they are advertising without registering, they get banned. Mods can look at the registered advertiser list and ban any spammers.

I think Theymos' solution is significantly better than doing nothing, don't get me wrong.

You can. Simply open an (or 10) account(s), and spam as you usually would. (The spam is divided between the accounts so you can increase the activity of all of them efficiently.) Eventually (after about two months) you will qualify for most ads and will be able to spam the forum for pay.

My favorite solution in this thread is to require advertisers to only pay users who make large posts.

This will just make people post more garbage so they can qualify to have ads in their sigs IMO.

He means that posting isn't lucrative and to support yourself you would need an incredible number of posts. To reach this number you would probably need spam.


The best way to fix the spam is to not give people monetary incentive to increase their post count.

I think one possible compromise is to make it against the rules to have consistently content-less posts (as determined by the moderators) while advertising in your signature.

The problem is that this is tough to enforce for every user.

Ideally, advertisers would pay bitcointalk.org for adspace.


That is good. The problem is that there are users that abuse the system. I clearly do know what I'm talking about because I linked an example of such a user. Reporting the user doesn't do anything because even if he is breaking a rule by not contributing, he won't be banned.

If you are monitoring your users and making sure they have quality posts, then I commend you, but there is an obvious difference between the posts of those here because they love Bitcoin and those here because they love money.

Will link Theymos to this thread if I ever see him on IRC (which is rare).


I can agree with this. I think most people motivated enough to start their own service will be able to make an insightful post. Along with that, making dumb posts hurts your image and by extension the image of your company, which promotes good posts.


It's not about my signature. I've had that since long before every other user had an ad in their sig.

Yep, no one has taken the offer of $5000/day yet.

It seems that a good number of posts here have ads in their signature. While it is annoying to be bombarded with ads, I don't see being advertised to as a problem in itself.

The problem is that these advertisers pay users per post usually, so users will try to get in as many posts as they can. This leads to low quality, short, and often meaningless posts.

There are many examples of users polluting this forum, one user consistent enough for me to have ignored is Bitpop https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=14283;sa=showPosts


Users normally wouldn't be allowed to include ads in their posts, and most other forums disallow ads in signatures. Overall, this change would have a positive effect on this community by filtering out poorly thought out, short posts that are 20% content and 80% ad.

The same exact way bitcoin transactions work except in a different (significantly smaller) blockchain.

You could just let them use the testnet.