Topic: Are we stress testing again? - page 6. (Read 33192 times)

There was a small spike, but I dont think it was an attack or stress test. Looks more like higher usage.


I prefer -> https://statoshi.info/dashboard/db/transactions
now that my node can no longer handle all TX, it can only give you a rough picture -> http://213.165.91.169/
There is a site that shows you fee stimates as well, but I cant remember the URL atm. Its cointape.com you listed below.


No. For one bc.i (same as my node now) restricts which transactions they accept. Its also possible that there are 2500 "legit" transactions waiting for a confirmation. Bitcoin is still used differently around the world which results in times where there are more TX. Like a rush hour.


It gives you a recommendation in satoshi per byte. You can roughly estimate 10 byte base + 180 bytes per input and 34 byte per output. Depending on the wallet you use it might not be possible to know how many inputs are used though.


No, the blue line is the number of unconfirmed transactions. If its constantly high there has been spam in the past. If its increasing over a longer period there is currently spam going on. Keep in mind the 3rd graph for malleated TX. The more red you see the more TX are malleated.


IMHO the best solution is to run core as it estimates the fee based on the current state of the network. I know of no other wallet that does this. For every other wallet you have to either go the easy route and take a rough rule of thumb that might result in a "too high" fee or do the estimate yourself everytime. I would argue that its not worth anyones time to check different pages for 10-15 minutes in order to safe a few satoshi in fees.

Is another stress test running?

I would like to know where should i look at when determining if a stress test is going on AND to find out which fee to use to get your transaction go through. I would like to give easy tips for my escrow users.

I know i can look at https://blockchain.info/de/unconfirmed-transactions, if transactions there are more than 2500 then this should be considered not normal and a spam attack is going on. Right?

Next thing is cointape.com. You can see if an attack goes on, though it is only possible to find out which fee to use for no problems, if you have a standard transaction. Which is one input in your transaction and 2 outputs. Target address and either change address or the address the funds are sent from. Of course any other works too but that would be standard. Though it is not userfriendly at all because it shows fees in satoshi per byte, which is something you have to be knowledgeable for.

Then http://statoshi.info/dashboard/db/transactions, where, i think, the most top graph is important. If the yellow line is often at blue line then it can be considered as an attack going on.

So how would you give tips about finding out if a spam attack goes an AND to know which fee to chose to not be hold in limbo with your transaction? And no, i don't consider simply throwing high fees around as the best solution.

Bits is another name for uBTC.

They are from statoshi.info.

I think your graph is showing the fees in uBTC, it seems mislabelled as "BITS", which I think is some sorta failed altcoin: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/annbitsbitstar-now-on-cryptopia-nova-and-yobit-new-wallet-fork-in-testing-748045

Beyond that, nice looking charts.  How did you generate those?

Something has to be done to tackle these kind of stress tests. There are so many junk transactions filling my hard drive.

There is no other way.

There is not such thing as "normal minimum fee" in bitcoin consensus rules.
Usually miners accept transactions with a 1 satoshi-per-byte fee. ( 0.00001 btc per kb )
And even less.
But today many pools set minimum fee to 0.00005 btc per kilobyte just not to keep this 1GB in their mempools

There is no consensus rule which define the minimum in/out value. Even zero value is valid.

Splitting to small outputs and combining from small outputs are two different types of testing.

And the fee is really big. But there is no other way as I said above.

For the thread, before the fist 1/3 of the graph) and in the stress test (the 2/3 of graph) ... look the accepted vs rejected.

Hm... they have around 10% of the outputs as fee. And the fee is not the normal minimum fee. So i probably read it wrong that the inputs on these addresses were too low to pay the huge transactions needed to take the coins out again. Or maybe these inputs came from different spam attacks where they were higher? I only remember a lot of talk about that it would not be possible to withdraw them without having to pay too much.

the complet purge of the mempool of the node seems to touch the end... look like somes queues to discharge again (glitch at 20s = purge already spend or dust transaction).

but it's better than 2 days.

They (I do not know who they are) combine dust outputs and send them to
https://blockchain.info/address/135zDqhbNcmPk3gbyeJmH75yiLdVZechsK

They collected it? Weren't these "giveaways" so strange that you would need a higher fee to take them out of their addresses than the actual value is worth? So i doubt they collected them. It even wouldn't make sense if they have miners that can include these transactions. Since they would lose money by doing so instead including real transactions.

What scares me about the spam attack is the attackers began giving away the tiny fractions of bitcoins they used in the attack, then changed their minds and sent what remained back to the same address. Why did they change their minds and stop the giveaway? Was it because they intend to use those coins to mount another attack?

Thanks for the answer. The second attack is most probably run by amaclin. See: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12579271

Though the normal spam attack... they really get me every time. When i stop checking the unconfirmed transactions before sending because it was calm for a long time... then they start again and catch my transactions in limbo. 

They are two distinct "attacks" going on now.  

One "attack" is just another "stress test" whereby some entity ("coinwallet.eu"?) issues a huge amount of spam transactions, so far paying very low fees.  It only affects some relay nodes (that have to hold all that spam in their queues) and clients who issue transactions with even lower fees.

The other is a "malleability attack" whereby someone else takes your transaction and issues an "evil twin" duplicate of it.  The duplicate moves the same coins to the same addresses, but if it gets confirmed instead of the original it may thoroughly confuse some wallets, including some popular ones.

So what kind of stress test is going on today again? Oo Man, i'm tired of this. Bitcoin payments will slowly get a slight harm as not being reliable.

I thought the last malleability attacks are only transactions with a too low fee to get included. Do they get included now before other transactions because their waiting time is so high or what is going on?

associate thread : https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12627614

I think now new type of DoS attack - "maleabity attack" - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1202046.999

I did not think that many nodes override the minimum fees, that, for example, are explain in bitcoin wiki. Maybe these miners include such transactions if no other transactions are available?

But i surely would not do it. The bigger the block the slower it propagates and the higher the chance of getting your block orphaned. It does not make sense to take that risk for some satoshies.

Though each to their own.

No. You can set any fee.
Nodes/miners either accept your tx or ignore it.
Today we see that many miners do not confirm low-fees transactions. (Some do confirm txs with a fee 1 satoshi-per-byte)
And many nodes on network still have them in their mempools

Hm, i wonder why someone tries this. Isn't it that the fees needed to include these transactions are higher than the outputs? If you try to do it with a lower fee than miners would accept then it will be useless. Or the one collecting the funds owns a mining farm and knows that these transactions will be included. But that makes no sense too since a miner of that size would not bother with pennies. And he would lose coins by including these transactions instead transactions that pay a fee.

So the one doing is makes a thing that does not look smart to me.