28 000 unconfirmed TXs | Bitcointalksearch.org

Hyena

legendary

Activity: 2114

Merit: 1015

Quote from: fairglu on July 10, 2015, 09:07:19 AM

Quote from: Hyena on July 10, 2015, 08:53:37 AM

No, false. Spammer could not spam the change addresses if you have not spent anything yet. My solution still has a practical value in many cases. The donation receiver could spend the donations in batches or perhaps not use a change address at all or set the same address for the change address.

This still puts the onus of the trouble on the receiver, and any mistakes makes him an easy target.

A good anti-spam solution should be easy on the normal users, "safe by default", and hard for the spammer, "expensive by default", not vice-versa.

GTFO. You are too lazy to understand the implications of my proposal and you fail to provide any solutions yourself. You just whine.

Quote

This still puts the onus of the trouble on the receiver, and any mistakes makes him an easy target.

What does this even mean? In case you are not a programmer I am not going to even bother to discuss this with you any further. In case you are a programmer, you should know, that what you see as a problem, can be solved programmatically by the wallet software. Either way, since you fail to understand the technical details of such a feature, you should just stick to the abstract.

Abstract
There should be functionality for the wallet owner to define the minimum amount of bitcoins they are willing to receive. Such a command must be saved in the bitcoin block chain for a small fee. As a result, bitcoin wallets become resistant to dust spam which would otherwise slow down their device dramatically or consume all the RAM.

fairglu

legendary

Activity: 1100

Merit: 1032

Quote from: Hyena on July 10, 2015, 08:53:37 AM

No, false. Spammer could not spam the change addresses if you have not spent anything yet. My solution still has a practical value in many cases. The donation receiver could spend the donations in batches or perhaps not use a change address at all or set the same address for the change address.

This still puts the onus of the trouble on the receiver, and any mistakes makes him an easy target.

A good anti-spam solution should be easy on the normal users, "safe by default", and hard for the spammer, "expensive by default", not vice-versa.

Hyena

legendary

Activity: 2114

Merit: 1015

Quote from: fairglu on July 10, 2015, 08:41:45 AM

Quote from: Hyena on July 10, 2015, 08:22:42 AM

However, if you had a public donation receiving address, then it makes sense to establish a minimum amount that you would accept.

Spammer could then just spam the addresses you spent your donation on, or any "weak link".

No, false. Spammer could not spam the change addresses if you have not spent anything yet. My solution still has a practical value in many cases. The donation receiver could spend the donations in batches or perhaps not use a change address at all or set the same address for the change address.

Quote from: fairglu on July 10, 2015, 08:41:45 AM

I do not think that any manual measures can be effective against spam, just like manually filtering your mail, manually white-listing and manually black-listing never worked very well, and never will.

Spam being automated, it has to be fought by automated means.

This is the automated means.

fairglu

legendary

Activity: 1100

Merit: 1032

Quote from: Hyena on July 10, 2015, 08:22:42 AM

However, if you had a public donation receiving address, then it makes sense to establish a minimum amount that you would accept.

Spammer could then just spam the addresses you spent your donation on, or any "weak link".

I do not think that any manual measures can be effective against spam, just like manually filtering your mail, manually white-listing and manually black-listing never worked very well, and never will.

Spam being automated, it has to be fought by automated means.

Hyena

legendary

Activity: 2114

Merit: 1015

Quote from: fairglu on July 10, 2015, 08:08:51 AM

Quote from: Hyena on July 10, 2015, 06:33:37 AM

setting a minimal accepted amount must require a TX fee of course because it consumes space in the block chain.

That would not work with change addresses... the wallet creates change address automatically, they're part of your wallet and bitcoin's pseudonymity and security features.

Paying a fee for all your change address would be impractical, and provide a money trail to boot.

So what? I never said this should be effective for absolutely all addresses. By default, there should be no minimum amount. However, if you had a public donation receiving address, then it makes sense to establish a minimum amount that you would accept.

fairglu

legendary

Activity: 1100

Merit: 1032

Quote from: Hyena on July 10, 2015, 06:33:37 AM

setting a minimal accepted amount must require a TX fee of course because it consumes space in the block chain.

That would not work with change addresses... the wallet creates change address automatically, they're part of your wallet and bitcoin's pseudonymity and security features.

Paying a fee for all your change address would be impractical, and provide a money trail to boot.

Hyena

legendary

Activity: 2114

Merit: 1015

Quote from: fairglu on July 10, 2015, 01:40:56 AM

Quote from: funtotry on July 09, 2015, 08:51:23 PM

because of these autists doing this "stress test"

Not autists doing a stress tests, but smart people with a plan.

There is about 30-40 BTC now being spent on this dust spam attack, the first spams days ago were probably the stress test for what is happening now. They're now sending dust to actual wallets (like wikileak), which will make it a PITA for these wallets (and will further bloat the blockchain when they will defragment)

As annoying as it is, it's something that the network has to be strengthened against, if BTC wants to be a global currency, it's a problem it has to tackle.

FWIW a dust attack happened years ago againts LTC, and since that attack there is a huge amount of unspendable 1 satoshi dust bloating the LTC blockchain. It will be interesting to see how BTC comes out.

There should be a mechanism to set a minimum number of satoshis that your address is willing to receive and that should be saved in the bitcoin's block chain, signed by the private key to your address. Then all TXs that include an output to your defined address with a smaller amount than you have specified would be rejected by the bitcoin network immediately.

edit:
setting a minimal accepted amount must require a TX fee of course because it consumes space in the block chain.

fairglu

legendary

Activity: 1100

Merit: 1032

Quote from: funtotry on July 09, 2015, 08:51:23 PM

because of these autists doing this "stress test"

Not autists doing a stress tests, but smart people with a plan.

There is about 30-40 BTC now being spent on this dust spam attack, the first spams days ago were probably the stress test for what is happening now. They're now sending dust to actual wallets (like wikileak), which will make it a PITA for these wallets (and will further bloat the blockchain when they will defragment)

As annoying as it is, it's something that the network has to be strengthened against, if BTC wants to be a global currency, it's a problem it has to tackle.

FWIW a dust attack happened years ago againts LTC, and since that attack there is a huge amount of unspendable 1 satoshi dust bloating the LTC blockchain. It will be interesting to see how BTC comes out.

meono

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

Quote from: Hyena on July 09, 2015, 08:49:29 PM

This is getting really annoying. I have waited for several hours for the confirmation. If there was a way to increase the TX fee to get it confirmed faster I would already be doing it because it is a really urgent TX. I cannot go to sleep because of this. Fuck you bitcoin network, you are pissing me off right now. How long will those "stress tests" continue? I would say everyone already gets the point so why continue?

In case you didnt know, there is a memo on chinese sites that the attack is carried out by the group that pumped LTC, (with a pyramid scheme).

funtotry

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 250

Ever wanted to run your own casino? PM me for info

Why do these faggots keep doing this.
I am buying in on the litecoin hype train, but I fucking can't because it is taking hours for my TX to confirm because of these autists doing this "stress test"
Just STOP

Hyena

legendary

Activity: 2114

Merit: 1015

This is getting really annoying. I have waited for several hours for the confirmation. If there was a way to increase the TX fee to get it confirmed faster I would already be doing it because it is a really urgent TX. I cannot go to sleep because of this. Fuck you bitcoin network, you are pissing me off right now. How long will those "stress tests" continue? I would say everyone already gets the point so why continue?

BombaUcigasa

legendary

Activity: 1442

Merit: 1005

Quote from: Taek on July 09, 2015, 12:39:35 PM

If the mempools start struggling to keep up, all you need to do is ...

... kick people out so the remaining people can place their transactions in an orderly fashion?

66 000 transactions now.

DumbFruit

sr. member

Activity: 433

Merit: 267

Quote from: Taek on July 09, 2015, 12:39:35 PM

It does become more expensive to raise the transaction fee to a certain minimum price though.

If the mempools start struggling to keep up, all you need to do is configure them to ignore transactions below some price. The current minimum price is clearly too cheap, as these attacks are being effective at filling mempools.

What's wrong with the mempool filling up and increasing your own transaction fee? The minimum bitcoin fee is zero. The default minimum is 0.0001 bitcoins, but that is entirely optional.
The developers so far have been reluctant to implement any kind of price fixing measures, knowing the negative consequences of it. This includes not only the fact that changing any of those parameters would require a hard fork, but also all of the other inherit economic problems.

https://mises.ca/posts/articles/false-remedy-price-fixing/

Taek

hero member

Activity: 543

Merit: 501

Quote from: DumbFruit on July 09, 2015, 12:00:29 PM

Quote from: BombaUcigasa on July 09, 2015, 11:54:59 AM

Quote from: Enzyme on July 09, 2015, 10:48:51 AM

And the worst thing about all this is, it only took $400 dollars to do.

If the block was 8MB, it would have costed $3200 USD dollars moneys.

No.

Imagine that you were in a shipping company that ships boxes of air to other people, and your manager is complaining because the boxes are always full. He insists that you need to start using bigger boxes so that the boxes won't be full of air.

The point is that it is always trivial to send enough transactions to fill a block. Big blocks don't prevent spam, or DOS, nor do they necessarily make it more expensive. The bigger the blocks, the smaller the fees for inclusion.

It does become more expensive to raise the transaction fee to a certain minimum price though.

If the mempools start struggling to keep up, all you need to do is configure them to ignore transactions below some price. The current minimum price is clearly too cheap, as these attacks are being effective at filling mempools.

Syke

legendary

Activity: 3878

Merit: 1193

Code:

$ ~/bitcoin-0.10.2/bin/bitcoin-cli getmempoolinfo
{
    "size" : 59651,
    "bytes" : 112127725
}

Impressive, but not unexpected. Transactions have always been very cheap. I'm surprised this attack didn't happen before.

PolarPoint

hero member

Activity: 672

Merit: 500

Did the people responsible for these so called tests say when there tests will stop? If this goes on, it will take a week to confirm all the transactions in the mempool. Is this there method of proving we need larger blocks or larger blocks lead to spam and oversized blockchain?

lorylore

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1002

I was just thinking what will happened if 28 000 visa transactions will be messed in the world.
28k tx. is a large amount. Hope will be solved asap.

DumbFruit

sr. member

Activity: 433

Merit: 267

Quote from: BombaUcigasa on July 09, 2015, 11:54:59 AM

Quote from: Enzyme on July 09, 2015, 10:48:51 AM

And the worst thing about all this is, it only took $400 dollars to do.

If the block was 8MB, it would have costed $3200 USD dollars moneys.

No.

Imagine that you were in a shipping company that ships boxes of air to other people, and your manager is complaining because the boxes are always full. He insists that you need to start using bigger boxes so that the boxes won't be full of air.

The point is that it is always trivial to send enough transactions to fill a block. Big blocks don't prevent spam, or DOS, nor do they necessarily make it more expensive. The bigger the blocks, the smaller the fees for inclusion.

BombaUcigasa

legendary

Activity: 1442

Merit: 1005

Quote from: Enzyme on July 09, 2015, 10:48:51 AM

And the worst thing about all this is, it only took $400 dollars to do.

If the block was 8MB, it would have costed $3200 USD dollars moneys.

Enzyme

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 250

And the worst thing about all this is, it only took $400 dollars to do.

Topic: 28 000 unconfirmed TXs (Read 6017 times)