is there a litecoin mining pool that allows connections on port 80? thanks!
Ozcoinlc.ozco.in:80
We have just updated to the latest litecoind as well
Topic: [ANN] Litecoin - a lite version of Bitcoin. Launched! - page 360. (Read 1467253 times)
lc.ozco.in:80
We have just updated to the latest litecoind as well
Litecoin version 0.5.0.5 has been released.
- added minimum fee of 0.1 LTC for low priority transactions to deter transaction spam
Please get latest from source or download the Windows client binary:
https://github.com/downloads/coblee/litecoin/litecoin-windows-client-0.5.0.5.zip
Pool operators and solo miners should get this latest code so that you don't write these spammy transactions into blocks. Users should download the latest client so they don't propagate spammy transactions and let them slow down the client.
As terrytibbs said, this won't totally fix the problem, as the spammer can still write his transactions into blocks he finds himself. But it should reduce the network congestion of propagating these spammy transactions and reduce the number of blocks that contain these transactions.
- added minimum fee of 0.1 LTC for low priority transactions to deter transaction spam
Please get latest from source or download the Windows client binary:
https://github.com/downloads/coblee/litecoin/litecoin-windows-client-0.5.0.5.zip
Pool operators and solo miners should get this latest code so that you don't write these spammy transactions into blocks. Users should download the latest client so they don't propagate spammy transactions and let them slow down the client.
As terrytibbs said, this won't totally fix the problem, as the spammer can still write his transactions into blocks he finds himself. But it should reduce the network congestion of propagating these spammy transactions and reduce the number of blocks that contain these transactions.
Might want to announce in separate thread so people who don't keep up with the LiteCoin proper thread will get the message if they're unaware.
We have forum for that kind of stuff: http://liteco.in/
As terrytibbs said, this won't totally fix the problem, as the spammer can still write his transactions into blocks he finds himself. But it should reduce the network congestion of propagating these spammy transactions and reduce the number of blocks that contain these transactions.
But you can also check the transactions in the blocks and discard the block if 1+ transactions are not ok.
As terrytibbs said, this won't totally fix the problem, as the spammer can still write his transactions into blocks he finds himself. But it should reduce the network congestion of propagating these spammy transactions and reduce the number of blocks that contain these transactions.
But you can also check the transactions in the blocks and discard the block if 1+ transactions are not ok.
Litecoin version 0.5.0.5 has been released.
- added minimum fee of 0.1 LTC for low priority transactions to deter transaction spam
Please get latest from source or download the Windows client binary:
https://github.com/downloads/coblee/litecoin/litecoin-windows-client-0.5.0.5.zip
Pool operators and solo miners should get this latest code so that you don't write these spammy transactions into blocks. Users should download the latest client so they don't propagate spammy transactions and let them slow down the client.
As terrytibbs said, this won't totally fix the problem, as the spammer can still write his transactions into blocks he finds himself. But it should reduce the network congestion of propagating these spammy transactions and reduce the number of blocks that contain these transactions.
- added minimum fee of 0.1 LTC for low priority transactions to deter transaction spam
Please get latest from source or download the Windows client binary:
https://github.com/downloads/coblee/litecoin/litecoin-windows-client-0.5.0.5.zip
Pool operators and solo miners should get this latest code so that you don't write these spammy transactions into blocks. Users should download the latest client so they don't propagate spammy transactions and let them slow down the client.
As terrytibbs said, this won't totally fix the problem, as the spammer can still write his transactions into blocks he finds himself. But it should reduce the network congestion of propagating these spammy transactions and reduce the number of blocks that contain these transactions.
Might want to announce in separate thread so people who don't keep up with the LiteCoin proper thread will get the message if they're unaware.
Litecoin version 0.5.0.5 has been released.
- added minimum fee of 0.1 LTC for low priority transactions to deter transaction spam
Please get latest from source or download the Windows client binary:
https://github.com/downloads/coblee/litecoin/litecoin-windows-client-0.5.0.5.zip
Pool operators and solo miners should get this latest code so that you don't write these spammy transactions into blocks. Users should download the latest client so they don't propagate spammy transactions and let them slow down the client.
As terrytibbs said, this won't totally fix the problem, as the spammer can still write his transactions into blocks he finds himself. But it should reduce the network congestion of propagating these spammy transactions and reduce the number of blocks that contain these transactions.
- added minimum fee of 0.1 LTC for low priority transactions to deter transaction spam
Please get latest from source or download the Windows client binary:
https://github.com/downloads/coblee/litecoin/litecoin-windows-client-0.5.0.5.zip
Pool operators and solo miners should get this latest code so that you don't write these spammy transactions into blocks. Users should download the latest client so they don't propagate spammy transactions and let them slow down the client.
As terrytibbs said, this won't totally fix the problem, as the spammer can still write his transactions into blocks he finds himself. But it should reduce the network congestion of propagating these spammy transactions and reduce the number of blocks that contain these transactions.
Your suggestiong of 0.001 LTC fee is likely too low as a million of these transactions only costs 1000 LTC, which is just $6.
I agree that's too small, but not sure why you'd want to focus or larger transactions:I'm going to make the minimum transaction fee for Litecoin be 0.1 LTC for transactions that are large and low-priority.
Isn't the problem rather about small transactions?Also, probably a 0.01 LTC fee would be enough, I think that's what Bitcoin used to do (?).
By larger transaction, I mean transaction that are large in terms of bytes. So a transaction with a lot of small 0.00000001 outputs will be considered a large transaction. Yes, bitcoin was at 0.01 BTC fee earlier this year. But I don't know what the fee was when Bitcoin first came out.
Your suggestiong of 0.001 LTC fee is likely too low as a million of these transactions only costs 1000 LTC, which is just $6.
I agree that's too small, but not sure why you'd want to focus or larger transactions:I'm going to make the minimum transaction fee for Litecoin be 0.1 LTC for transactions that are large and low-priority.
Isn't the problem rather about small transactions?Also, probably a 0.01 LTC fee would be enough, I think that's what Bitcoin used to do (?).
...
Edit: yes this isn't SolidCoin 2.0
no one should be dictating anything
Your not even going to take input from anyone about it?Edit: yes this isn't SolidCoin 2.0
no one should be dictating anythingWouldn't hurt to get other input on the subject from the forum users (i.e. give it a day for people to respond)
If the 'official' solution is given as 'do this' people who consider the spam a problem are not in a position to do anything but use the new client.
As for making a suggestion, I already did
0.001 LTC fee for txn less than 1 LTC (with a review in a month)
I'm not really fussed either way, but certainly if a 'quick' fix is put in, a proper solution should be HIGH on the agenda for discussion and implementation in the near future.
Changing any of the economics of LTC is certainly something that needs some discussion and agreement (unlike that other coin ...)
Please note that I am not changing the economics of LTC. The fees in Litecoin and Bitcoin are currently there to deter spam and ddos attacks. Litecoin had fees that were too low given the price of litecoin to do a good job at deterring transaction spam. And remember that free transactions are still allowed as long as you use coins that are old enough and your transaction is small (i.e. not creating a ton of small outputs to spam the network).
Your suggestiong of 0.001 LTC fee is likely too low as a million of these transactions only costs 1000 LTC, which is just $6.
...
Edit: yes this isn't SolidCoin 2.0 no one should be dictating anything
Your not even going to take input from anyone about it?Edit: yes this isn't SolidCoin 2.0
no one should be dictating anythingWouldn't hurt to get other input on the subject from the forum users (i.e. give it a day for people to respond)
If the 'official' solution is given as 'do this' people who consider the spam a problem are not in a position to do anything but use the new client.
As for making a suggestion, I already did
0.001 LTC fee for txn less than 1 LTC (with a review in a month)
I'm not really fussed either way, but certainly if a 'quick' fix is put in, a proper solution should be HIGH on the agenda for discussion and implementation in the near future.
Changing any of the economics of LTC is certainly something that needs some discussion and agreement (unlike that other coin ...)
...
Edit: yes this isn't SolidCoin 2.0 no one should be dictating anything
Your not even going to take input from anyone about it?Edit: yes this isn't SolidCoin 2.0
no one should be dictating anythingWouldn't hurt to get other input on the subject from the forum users (i.e. give it a day for people to respond)
If the 'official' solution is given as 'do this' people who consider the spam a problem are not in a position to do anything but use the new client.
As for making a suggestion, I already did
0.001 LTC fee for txn less than 1 LTC (with a review in a month)
I'm not really fussed either way, but certainly if a 'quick' fix is put in, a proper solution should be HIGH on the agenda for discussion and implementation in the near future.
Changing any of the economics of LTC is certainly something that needs some discussion and agreement (unlike that other coin ...)
This needs to be fixed. Probably some SC trolls.
Too much fees. Why don't you like the spam ? Donating coins = win for me.
...
Edit: yes this isn't SolidCoin 2.0 no one should be dictating anything
Your not even going to take input from anyone about it?Edit: yes this isn't SolidCoin 2.0
no one should be dictating anythingWouldn't hurt to get other input on the subject from the forum users (i.e. give it a day for people to respond)
I've been talking to a lot of people about this issue on IRC. At first, I wasn't going to do anything about it b/c the guy isn't totally malicious. He's actually donating coins to people. But it seems like he's not going to stop and the size of the chain is growing big. And since our fees are too low, he can keep doing this forever and it won't cost him much. So it makes sense to increase the fees to make it at least cost something to perform this DDoS spam attack.
Since I believe this change is pretty harmless, I didn't think we needed to have a long discussion about this. If you think 0.1 LTC is too little or too much or if you have another way to solve this problem, please post it. We can always put in a better fix later. But I think I need to act now to address this problem.
Too much fees. Why don't you like the spam ? Donating coins = win for me.
...
Edit: yes this isn't SolidCoin 2.0 no one should be dictating anything
Your not even going to take input from anyone about it?Edit: yes this isn't SolidCoin 2.0
no one should be dictating anythingWouldn't hurt to get other input on the subject from the forum users (i.e. give it a day for people to respond)
I've been talking to a lot of people about this issue on IRC. At first, I wasn't going to do anything about it b/c the guy isn't totally malicious. He's actually donating coins to people. But it seems like he's not going to stop and the size of the chain is growing big. And since our fees are too low, he can keep doing this forever and it won't cost him much. So it makes sense to increase the fees to make it at least cost something to perform this DDoS spam attack.
Since I believe this change is pretty harmless, I didn't think we needed to have a long discussion about this. If you think 0.1 LTC is too little or too much or if you have another way to solve this problem, please post it. We can always put in a better fix later. But I think I need to act now to address this problem.
...
Edit: yes this isn't SolidCoin 2.0 no one should be dictating anything
Your not even going to take input from anyone about it?Edit: yes this isn't SolidCoin 2.0
no one should be dictating anythingWouldn't hurt to get other input on the subject from the forum users (i.e. give it a day for people to respond)
...
Edit: yes this isn't SolidCoin 2.0 no one should be dictating anything
Your not even going to take input from anyone about it?Edit: yes this isn't SolidCoin 2.0
no one should be dictating anythingWouldn't hurt to get other input on the subject from the forum users (i.e. give it a day for people to respond)
I'm guessing gmaxwell's post got someone to start thinking what would happen if there were a ton of these small transactions. And he's testing that out. The current fees for Litecoin is way too low because we are using the same fees as Bitcoin. But since the value of an LTC is about 1/200 of that of BTC, we would need to have fees about 200x that of Bitcoin to deter this behavior. I'm going to make the minimum transaction fee for Litecoin be 0.1 LTC for transactions that are large and low-priority.
This change will not fork the chain, because clients are not going to reject blocks with transactions containing too little fees. This just prevents transactions with too little fees to be propagted or put into blocks by clients/miners running this new code.
I'm working on testing out the code right now to make sure everything is ok. Will release the source and binary soon.
This is not going to stop the spammer from confirming these transactions by himself, but it's a step in the right direction. This change will not fork the chain, because clients are not going to reject blocks with transactions containing too little fees. This just prevents transactions with too little fees to be propagted or put into blocks by clients/miners running this new code.
I'm working on testing out the code right now to make sure everything is ok. Will release the source and binary soon.
Pretty suspicious that gmaxwell posts that just before it happened.
Either he knew about it indirectly from the culprits or is involved in it.
There is no doubt in my mind that gmaxwell is not the person spamming us with transactions.Either he knew about it indirectly from the culprits or is involved in it.
I'm guessing gmaxwell's post got someone to start thinking what would happen if there were a ton of these small transactions. And he's testing that out. The current fees for Litecoin is way too low because we are using the same fees as Bitcoin. But since the value of an LTC is about 1/200 of that of BTC, we would need to have fees about 200x that of Bitcoin to deter this behavior. I'm going to make the minimum transaction fee for Litecoin be 0.1 LTC for transactions that are large and low-priority.
This change will not fork the chain, because clients are not going to reject blocks with transactions containing too little fees. This just prevents transactions with too little fees to be propagted or put into blocks by clients/miners running this new code.
I'm working on testing out the code right now to make sure everything is ok. Will release the source and binary soon.
Pretty suspicious that gmaxwell posts that just before it happened.
Either he knew about it indirectly from the culprits or is involved in it.
There is no doubt in my mind that gmaxwell is not the person spamming us with transactions.Either he knew about it indirectly from the culprits or is involved in it.
I don't really care either way - just it would have been better to post his thread in here with comments for coblee (or you or whoever) to discuss and suggest a change - posting a code change in his own thread is pretty much pointless.
coblee around?
Anyone else have access to the git?
Any change should be agreed upon and be in the official git before anyone else starts posting changes anywhere else.
Edit: yes this isn't SolidCoin 2.0
no one should be dictating anything Pretty suspicious that gmaxwell posts that just before it happened.
Either he knew about it indirectly from the culprits or is involved in it.
There is no doubt in my mind that gmaxwell is not the person spamming us with transactions. Either he knew about it indirectly from the culprits or is involved in it.
Jump to: