Topic: Are we stress testing again? - page 9. (Read 33192 times)

Yeah, someone told me that too today. I think thats unbelievably stupid. How can they filter out the transactions? It does not make sense at all.

At least you can still see when the network gets spammed. When the unconfirmet transactions are higher than 2000 then its most probably the case. I mean real transactions are stuck and still get counted.

But a stupid move of them for sure.

According to the CSV file available from this site, this is the situation of the unconfirmed transaction queues, about one hour ago

    total unconfirmed transactions 97'544 kB (~195'000 tx)

    fee range (mBTC/kB)                  tx kB       #tx
    ---------------------------------  -------  --------
    0.000000000000 --  0.199893048128     2806     ~5600 
    0.200000000000                       58519   ~107000
    0.200000000001 --  0.200099800399       45       ~90
    0.200105764146                       30139    ~60000
    0.200105820106 --  0.200219538968     5390    ~10600
    0.201005025126 --  5.235602094240      645     ~1300

The tx counts are estimated, assuming that the average transaction has 0.5 kB.

Because of empty and partly empty blocks, each block can take ~780 kB of transactions (~1560 tx) , on average.

The ~107'000 transactions with fee exactly 0.2 mBTC/kB  must be the spammer's.  

The ~60'000 transactions with fee exactly 0.200105764146 mBTC/kB may be also from the spammer, or from some wallet that uses that specific fee.

The ~1300 transactions with fees 0.201 mBTC/kB or higher should have been processed in the next block.

The ~5600 transactions with fees smaller than 0.2 mBTC/kB should sit there until the backlog clears (min 48 hours).

I didn't read books but saw that the Earth is plain and the Sun is moving around it 

Why? There is nothing in new version about this

Thanks for the confirmation that indeed no one has been taking credit for the recent attacks/tests.  I miss a lot of stuff and I'm pretty sure you follow this more closely than I do, JorgeStolfi.

RealMalatesta:  I'm not saying you're wrong about the "fakeness" of coinwallet or KingAfurah, I just found it strange that only the first "test" was being talked about openly and these others have been "anonymous" in some sense.  I also think that if your goal was to attack bitcoin, the best strategy would be to save up your money and do one badass attack, rather than lots of little ones that end up strengthening the network (as people response to and prepare for more of the small attacks).

Coinwallet.eu posted on reddit their plans and an analysis of their first aborted attempt.  There has been no communication after the second successful attempt, ~July 7--19, that reached 250 MB of unconfirmed transactions.  

AFAIK, there has been no announcement or explanation, by anyone, for the current "test" that peaked at 50 MB of  backlog and used higer fees (0.2 mBTC/kB).  This too seems to be a test (or an attempt to drive fees up), rather than an outright attack: any transaction that pays 0.25 mBTC/kB should confirm as fast as it did before the "attack".

Abut a week ago, someone also ran another test with average 5 tx/s (the normal traffic being ~1.4 tx/s). The test traffic was issued as many busts of ~10 tx/s spaced maybe 5 min apart, IIRC.  However almost all of those transactions were rejected; maybe they were attempts at double-spends, or a stress test of the RBF mechanism. Unfortunately, statoshi.org and several other sites have purged that data and now show only valid traffic

The "spokesperson" was a guy who called himself "KingAfurah". His first post was in June:

"King Afurah" is online almost every day, but never ever writes something.

So there's a millionaire neewbie who claims to be with the Nigerian Army, representing coinwallet.eu wich isn't more than a defunct homepage (I registered there and tried for a long time to work with them - no response at all, and too many 'lorem ipsum'-parts on their homepage for being more than a fake...).

The only lead to a real person is when "King Afurah" writes that MultiBit is their partner. However, I never got any response from them when I asked...

Basically, the whole company/spokesperson-thing seems to be nonsense. All that sounds logical is that a stress test may cost about 5000 US a day.

But this test is going on and off without any explanation that the question has to be asked: Cui Bono....

You might be right about "fine tuning" but since these attacks cost more and more money, and I know that with each attack my mobile wallet was adding more fees to compensate, making future attacks even more expensive.  It would seems like the "fine tuning" would just be upping the price.  Ie, if you had skipped the fine tuning and just saved your money from the first 3 rounds you could have executed a much more damaging attack in the 4th round.  Do you know what I mean?  Also, given these little attacks and the fact that miners are making new rules to compensate, etc, it seems like you're also giving warning to the bitcoin community and preparing them.  Again making your future attacks much less damaging than if you had gone in with just one fell swoop and done the deed that way.

I know what you mean about coinwallet being anon-existing company, but someone was speaking up on their behalf and they were offering a rationale---even if it was a false one. These latest attacks haven't had any spokesmen, that I've heard about, and that seems a little weird, right?

This is an interesting theory. Although I am not entirely sure what kind of organization would want to execute ever increasingly sized attacks on Bitcoin like this. There are a couple of possibilities though

• A government that feels threatened by Bitcoin - I would doubt this because of the small "market cap" of bitcoin verses major fiat currencies, as well as the small amount of bitcoin related trade. The way things are going, bitcoin probably has the potential to increase revenue for governments because of additional trade that would lead to additional tax revenue
• A "Western Union" like company - I would doubt this because of the small size of bitcoin related trade verses the amount of money that is transferred by even the smaller remittance companies. It would also not be difficult for companies like Western Union to modify their business to include the sale and purchase of bitcoin at a markup/discount, possibly even at better rates then what they get in the remittance business, and without the potential for fraud in terms of someone with a fake ID picking up funds that shouldn't be able to pick up funds

It has been speculated that someone with a large holding of LTC was/is behind the recent attacks as it would be conceivable that people would flock to LTC when BTC transactions were slow to process (confirm), although even the connection between the attacks and the runup in LTC/BTC price is speculation.

I downloaded the blockchain today from scratch because i had some annoying problem, it took ages but I noticed it was extremely slow since the spam tests started. Is it because blocks contain more transactions or something? It started being really slower at "10 weeks ago". (using core)

Coinwallet is a non-existing company. So whoever started the first spam-wave hid in the dark. The same is happening since then a couple of time. For me it looks like someone is preparing and fine-tuning a much bigger attack. The timing for this is perfect, for while the attacker is hiding, a lot of other discussions are going on and therefor give room for a lot of speculations about the background of the attack(s).

The first "stress test" over a month ago had a lot of hype and PR and discussion around it.  It was clearly a move to influence the block-size increase discussion and we had an entity (coinwallet, i think) claiming responsibility.  These recent ones are (I think) anonymous and therefore feel more nefarious.  What's the point?  Is it related to the block-size-increase discussion?  Or is it just someone who wants to cause problems for bitcoiners?  I have no idea and I wish we knew more about who is behind this stuff.

Yep... we are under new spam surge for sure.

Check http://bitcoinexchangerate.org/fees before each TX and raise your TX fee to 0.0004 BTC / KB, or play the waiting game.


source: http://statoshi.info/dashboard/db/transactions

No after the last spam attack they changed their node and which TX they would show. Bc.i is not showing what a regular node would show. Here is what my unmodified server node shows.



At the same time bc.i shows ~1400 unconfirmed TX.

These transactions are "standard" and "not dust".
But every node can accept or ignore transactions on their own rules.
One even can ignore all unconfirmed transactions. Protocol allows this.

I think they have a more accurate representation of the mempool than other sites. Most nodes have default rules which will reject almost all of the same transactions that bc.i does. Other sites such as tradeblock shows all unconfirmed transactions at that time, including ones considered non standard (dust) which are normally rejected by most nodes. I think that they tend to cause panic about the size of mempools when their data is not accurately representing most node's mempools. Statoshi.info is also quite reliable since that is just a node with stats.

do not trust bc.i
they do not show you all network transactions even the number of them
now they have some anti-spam filters which ignore incoming chained unconfirmed transactions

Then i would trust blockchain.info more since i didnt have any problems and blockchain.info showed correctly when the last spam attack went on.

Maybe do a testtransaction to confirm it.

Still, tradeblock shows 22k unconfirmed with mempool at 38Mb.

I dont think anything is going on at the moment. Unconfirmed transactions are below 2000 and thats normal. https://blockchain.info/de/unconfirmed-transactions

I sent a zero fee transaction shortly before and it went through as fast as any transaction.