Topic: Blocks are full. - page 3. (Read 14989 times)
^If you wait confirmations, there is no problem. But it takes longer confirmations to come.
Is the Bitcoin network under attack guys? I am reading on another site that we must be careful of double-spending and due to this getting double charged.
I don't think that this is spam. Growth is rather linear during last 60 days
https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions?timespan=60days&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=7&show_header=true&scale=0&address=
Mempool grows suddenly, when transactions don't go trough. It gives an impression of a sudden increase, but to my understanding it is just that when amount of transactions rises above certain treshold, congestion starts and when congestion starts, mempool jumps suddenly allthough it is just a symptom of linear growth achieving congestion treshold.
https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions?timespan=60days&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=7&show_header=true&scale=0&address=
Mempool grows suddenly, when transactions don't go trough. It gives an impression of a sudden increase, but to my understanding it is just that when amount of transactions rises above certain treshold, congestion starts and when congestion starts, mempool jumps suddenly allthough it is just a symptom of linear growth achieving congestion treshold.
A larger blocksize will make a spam attack more expensive, no?
Bingo... a 2MB block is significantly more expensive to fill. Lets assume the average block size is about ~.2/3 filled a spammer only has to fill ~1/3MB. If the block is 2MB that requires 4x the money. Does it stop it no...but it makes it alot harder.
this assuming that the block will not be filled completely in the future, basically they are waiting for the right time to have the hard fork for 2mb
for the right time i mean when in theory the 2mb increase is full already when adopted...this will only lead to an endless cycle where we always need an increase....
I do not think that a hard fork can hurt bitcoin,however a hard fork is required,vulnerabilities like ?
Hard Forks can't be done often for various reasons, therefore we should use one to fix things that are over-due. The HF that Classic is proposed: 1) Does not fix anything (adds sigops limitation that will have to be remove anyhow); 2) Is fundamentally flawed in its design (grace period, consensus threshold). there is something about network propagation rate or something like that and about orphan blocks.
I`m not an expert on this, but there are vulnerabilities.
Reading this might be useful: Bitcoin vulnerabilities; Hard fork wishlist. I`m not an expert on this, but there are vulnerabilities.
I do not think that a hard fork can hurt bitcoin,however a hard fork is required,vulnerabilities like ?
there is something about network propagation rate or something like that and about orphan blocks.
I`m not an expert on this, but there are vulnerabilities.
TX /s dropped from yesterday 1.7/s to 0.3/s, I think the spam is over
https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions
Segwit is good idea but an increase would required
Segwit should increase the transaction capacity to ~180-190% (or even more depending on use cases). This is close enough to a 2 MB block size limit (keep in mind that there is no guarantee that miners won't use their soft limits again). An increase is most likely going to happen, the question is just when. Quote
I know about Segwit,in my opinion in the near future we should find a definitively solution regarding the incease,so the future we can be able to deal with different problems that may occur, and not to keep in mind the block-size problem
It needs way more testing, and a hard fork is hard to orchestrate and can hurt bitcoin very badly, so its only a last case scenario.
Segwit is good idea but an increase would required
Segwit should increase the transaction capacity to ~180-190% (or even more depending on use cases). This is close enough to a 2 MB block size limit (keep in mind that there is no guarantee that miners won't use their soft limits again). An increase is most likely going to happen, the question is just when. Quote
I know about Segwit,in my opinion in the near future we should find a definitively solution regarding the incease,so the future we can be able to deal with different problems that may occur, and not to keep in mind the block-size problem
It needs way more testing, and a hard fork is hard to orchestrate and can hurt bitcoin very badly, so its only a last case scenario.
Segwit is good idea but an increase would required
Segwit should increase the transaction capacity to ~180-190% (or even more depending on use cases). This is close enough to a 2 MB block size limit (keep in mind that there is no guarantee that miners won't use their soft limits again). An increase is most likely going to happen, the question is just when. Quote
I know about Segwit,in my opinion in the near future we should find a definitively solution regarding the incease,so the future we can be able to deal with different problems that may occur, and not to keep in mind the block-size problem
A larger blocksize will make a spam attack more expensive, no?
Maybe. Maybe not. The cost of a spam attack depends on the fees associated with the transactions. With a bigger block size perhaps the spammer could get away with smaller fees. If the fees are smaller enough then it could more than offset the larger block size. If only things were simple. This is really interesting. I started running Classic recently and I too feel like I might have been the target of a DoS attack the last couple of days; my router/firewall has been reporting lots of teardrop attacks (way more than ever before) and as such has been less responsive than before. How does one determine they are being attacked for sure?
http://nodecounter.com/how_to_defeat_ddos_attacks_against_bitcoin_classic.phpA larger blocksize will make a spam attack more expensive, no?
Bingo... a 2MB block is significantly more expensive to fill. Lets assume the average block size is about ~.2/3 filled a spammer only has to fill ~1/3MB. If the block is 2MB that requires 4x the money. Does it stop it no...but it makes it alot harder.
Segwit is good idea but an increase would required
Segwit should increase the transaction capacity to ~180-190% (or even more depending on use cases). This is close enough to a 2 MB block size limit (keep in mind that there is no guarantee that miners won't use their soft limits again). An increase is most likely going to happen, the question is just when. you have try to post on r/bitcoin about xt or classic ?
You should know how contentious HF's are viewed in these places by now. Implementations that don't break consensus are allowed (AFAIK). I'm not involved in either subreddit so I can't say much.A larger blocksize will make a spam attack more expensive, no?
Not necessarily. ANd that is also why it is urgent to have a block size increase.
No. 
yes. that is something that the developers have been warning for some time now. ANd that is also why it is urgent to have a block size increase.
Lauda you must be lawyer right?
I'm a lot of things, but that is not one of them.I did not say that the block-size increase will prevent spam but it will help to have a smooth network operation.
I assumed that you think that an increase will solve the 'problems'/prevent attacks such as the one that occurred yesterday (which is the case with a lot of people). It is good that you understand that it won't. However, a block size limit increase is not necessary right now as Segwit will be implemented first which should increase the transaction capacity of the network. Theoretically (considering how resourceful some people are) the blocks could be always full.if you think the Censorship is present on /r/btc and not on r/bitcoin you just dreaming,let see things as they are and not as we would like to be
I never said such. However, I've seen a decent amount of 'people' complaining about /r/bitcoin and using /r/btc even though problems are present on both. Try posting something positive about Core on /r/btc and tell me what happens.
A larger blocksize will make a spam attack more expensive, no?
Lauda you must be lawyer right?
I'm a lot of things, but that is not one of them.I did not say that the block-size increase will prevent spam but it will help to have a smooth network operation.
I assumed that you think that an increase will solve the 'problems'/prevent attacks such as the one that occurred yesterday (which is the case with a lot of people). It is good that you understand that it won't. However, a block size limit increase is not necessary right now as Segwit will be implemented first which should increase the transaction capacity of the network. Theoretically (considering how resourceful some people are) the blocks could be always full.if you think the Censorship is present on /r/btc and not on r/bitcoin you just dreaming,let see things as they are and not as we would like to be
I never said such. However, I've seen a decent amount of 'people' complaining about /r/bitcoin and using /r/btc even though problems are present on both. Try posting something positive about Core on /r/btc and tell me what happens.
Lauda you must be lawyer right ? I did not say that the block-size increase will prevent spam but it will help to have a smooth network operation,Censorship is present on /r/btc. it is obvious that r/bitcoin is censorship,if you think the Censorship is present on /r/btc and not on r/bitcoin you just dreaming,let see things as they are and not as we would like to be
Definitely needs a block-size limit increase
Which effectively does nothing in the case of an attack. A block size limit increase does not prevent these types of attacks.The problem is that some people (e.g. Lauda) instantly dismiss anyone who tries to have a reasonable discussion with them as being a shill, troll, or whatever.
Disagreeing is one thing, refusing to listen to reason and evidence is another. On /r/bitcoin you can't even mention non-core clients without your posts or comments being removed.
Censorship is present on /r/btc.This is just a spam attack on the network, nothing more.
Correct.Luckily 'btc' has less google seraches than 'bitcoin' , so most newbies will more likely join /bitcoin subreddit after their first google search.
/r/btc is very toxic and should be avoided in any case, especially for new users. Right now Bitcoin's price is rallying and block are full. According to blockchain.info backlog of unconfirmed transactions is 11.6 MB right now and as far as I know there is now spam or stress test going on. How worse does it need to get?
This is just a spam attack on the network, nothing more.
Jump to: