Pages:
Author

Topic: Blocks are full. - page 5. (Read 14985 times)

hero member
Activity: 854
Merit: 1009
JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK
March 01, 2016, 10:00:04 PM

Well, then that/these person(s) have deep pockets I guess. I wonder who could think that this is a good investment at all.

Besides, wasn't there a pretty cheap way to spam with some metainformations? Though when this attack really is so expensive... dunno. Doesn't sound smart in any way.

Well there was some big institution behind it that is clear, maybe some jealous bank sponsored it? Who knows.

It looks like it's over, the TX/S shrunk to half since when I checked last time a few hours ago, and the unconfirmed ones as well.

And now the mempool is starting to shrink again back to normal levels.


People need to get used to these stuffs, it will happen many more times, and we cant let this shit destroy our community.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 1083
Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile
March 01, 2016, 09:56:51 PM
Is it correct to say that blocks are full now?
Full because of natural growth? No. Full because of an on-going spam attack that created a huge backlog? Yes.



It is pretty clear that somebody is doing this on purpose.

Another 'network durability stress test' a.k.a 'ddos' a.k.a 'spam' a.k.a 'butthurt bitcoin classic users' ?

Well, then that/these person(s) have deep pockets I guess. I wonder who could think that this is a good investment at all.

Besides, wasn't there a pretty cheap way to spam with some metainformations? Though when this attack really is so expensive... dunno. Doesn't sound smart in any way.
hero member
Activity: 854
Merit: 1009
JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK
March 01, 2016, 09:50:15 PM
Is it correct to say that blocks are full now?
Full because of natural growth? No. Full because of an on-going spam attack that created a huge backlog? Yes.



It is pretty clear that somebody is doing this on purpose.

Another 'network durability stress test' a.k.a 'ddos' a.k.a 'spam' a.k.a 'butthurt bitcoin classic users' ?
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 1083
Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile
March 01, 2016, 09:46:39 PM
Cryptology


It is pretty clear that somebody is doing this on purpose.

Agreed. That data points in that direction. In any case for an average bitcoin user it really doesn't matter why block are full.

Unfortunately this is not really true. I got a number of people complaining about transactions not going through because they chose a standard fee of some kind. Looks like there are enough wallets out there that still can't deal with spam attacks.



Windpower


So pretty much even if we raise the block size, it is going to do nothing. Wow. Why is everyone making a fuss over it then?

Some fear that it will be the first step only and have nightmares of much bigger blocks and that then someone could not run a node anymore.

Others explicitely don't want it because they want a fee market. Which means alot higher fees. They have the impression that bitcoin is a network for high amount transfers and that all small transfers are spam only.

Well, then there is the accusation that some of them do this only to promote lightning network. Which is practically using another network instead using bitcoin directly. Can't say that I give that idea much chances. Bitcoiners will be hard to convince.

And some others say that we first should implement SegWit. Which is a good thing but will get to it's borders relatively fast too. It can not help for very long.



AliceWonderMiscreations


If Amazon accepted bitcoin most people would still use credit cards, just like most people buying from newegg use credit card.

Before Amazon's volume could grow large enough for there to be a serious blockchain problem, your typical Tom Dick and Harry would have to own bitcoin and choose to spend it, and that's years away.

Sure, amazon would probably avoid advertising this. Though even the community might already put pressure on the network only by realizing the chances showing up with amazon adopting.

Though if the would advertise situation could change fast.

It's a very theoretical question anyway. No serious business would invest now in something bitcoin related. With all the news of apocalypse because of forks, non working bitcoin transactions, fights in the community and and and. Nobody invests into such an unstable area.
full member
Activity: 182
Merit: 107
March 01, 2016, 09:32:10 PM
I am not with increasing the block size, that was just a one-time incident and it's very rare for pools of transactions to accumulate like that, normally my even small transactions doesn't need more than one or two blocks to confirm. I think the current system already proved it's efficiency overtime. No need for a very big change currently.

If a mega merchant as Amazon is accepting Bitcoin as payment option, then all blocks will be full nearly instantly. That might be a reason for them NOT to accept Bitcoin payments as 1MB is simply not enough. 2MB is what we need if we want to attract mega merchants.

Exactly... the risk for big companies like amazon would be way too high that they can not use it after developing it.

If Amazon accepted bitcoin most people would still use credit cards, just like most people buying from newegg use credit card.

Before Amazon's volume could grow large enough for there to be a serious blockchain problem, your typical Tom Dick and Harry would have to own bitcoin and choose to spend it, and that's years away.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 501
March 01, 2016, 03:50:16 PM
He means that this problem will solve from itself once the block halving happened often enough. Then the fees for a block will be a bigger part of the reward for finding a block and no pool can include no transactions anymore.

When the internet speed is very fast for all the miners, the benefit of smaller bock (fast block relay speed) will diminish. All of them will include more transactions.

It's not only the internet speed. The network, which means all of the miners, have to verify blocks and the bigger the blocks the higher the time needed to verify them. Which means bigger blocks need more time to confirm.

I thinke the best way to solve this is more transactions, so higher fee and dropping block reward.
So pretty much even if we raise the block size, it is going to do nothing. Wow. Why is everyone making a fuss over it then?
legendary
Activity: 994
Merit: 1035
March 01, 2016, 03:43:31 PM
It is pretty clear that somebody is doing this on purpose.

Agreed. That data points in that direction. In any case for an average bitcoin user it really doesn't matter why block are full.


Its a good thing most modern wallets dynamically adjust fees automatically in real time... There are a fee stranglers that need to be updated though.
legendary
Activity: 1008
Merit: 1001
In Cryptography We Trust
March 01, 2016, 03:26:41 PM
It is pretty clear that somebody is doing this on purpose.

Agreed. That data points in that direction. In any case for an average bitcoin user it really doesn't matter why block are full.
legendary
Activity: 994
Merit: 1035
March 01, 2016, 03:16:38 PM
How long can they keep this up ?

It is costing them a least 5-10k a day... so depends on how deep their pockets are. Normal users with a proper wallet that adjusts fees dynamically are unaffected . My txs have been getting through in the immediate block with fees ranging from 5 - 11 pennies per tx.

It will be fun to see this attack persist if it is funded large bank or government and watch as they both spur the adoption of segwit in April and run up millions of dollars in fees.
full member
Activity: 167
Merit: 100
March 01, 2016, 03:13:09 PM
How long can they keep this up ?
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
March 01, 2016, 03:03:35 PM
Is it correct to say that blocks are full now?
Full because of natural growth? No. Full because of an on-going spam attack that created a huge backlog? Yes.



It is pretty clear that somebody is doing this on purpose.
legendary
Activity: 994
Merit: 1035
March 01, 2016, 02:26:54 PM
The correct statement is 'some blocks are full'. You can't just jump to conclusions based on data recovered in the last few hours. Out of the last few blocks I see a few at around 750kb.

It is frustrating how much energy is being wasted.  Just scale the blocksize  already...
That can be a dangerous act.

i have not been into all this bitcoin stuff for so long , but from all i read so far , i cant realy see why so much people are hating on bigger block sizes. Becuse all i can see and hear right now is that bitcoins would benfit from it a great deal.
Because you have no IT background and have not done adequate research. How could you jump to such conclusions? With a block size of 2 MB it is possible to construct a transaction that would take over 10 minutes to validate which would harm the network.

Is it correct to say that blocks are full now?

Yes , Appears to be a spam attack. Users are suggested to pay 2-4 pennies usd more per tx (most wallets automatically adjust these days) to insure their txs immediately get in the next block. Here are some beautiful pictures of the culprits --







Look at how they differ from other tx's visually represented in the background.
legendary
Activity: 1008
Merit: 1001
In Cryptography We Trust
March 01, 2016, 01:14:42 PM
The correct statement is 'some blocks are full'. You can't just jump to conclusions based on data recovered in the last few hours. Out of the last few blocks I see a few at around 750kb.

It is frustrating how much energy is being wasted.  Just scale the blocksize  already...
That can be a dangerous act.

i have not been into all this bitcoin stuff for so long , but from all i read so far , i cant realy see why so much people are hating on bigger block sizes. Becuse all i can see and hear right now is that bitcoins would benfit from it a great deal.
Because you have no IT background and have not done adequate research. How could you jump to such conclusions? With a block size of 2 MB it is possible to construct a transaction that would take over 10 minutes to validate which would harm the network.

Is it correct to say that blocks are full now?
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 1083
Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile
February 12, 2016, 03:24:28 PM
He means that this problem will solve from itself once the block halving happened often enough. Then the fees for a block will be a bigger part of the reward for finding a block and no pool can include no transactions anymore.

When the internet speed is very fast for all the miners, the benefit of smaller bock (fast block relay speed) will diminish. All of them will include more transactions.

It's not only the internet speed. The network, which means all of the miners, have to verify blocks and the bigger the blocks the higher the time needed to verify them. Which means bigger blocks need more time to confirm.

I thinke the best way to solve this is more transactions, so higher fee and dropping block reward.

Does it mean we have to have fast CPU or powerful computer to do that? Is that required for ordinary Core wallet holders?

Even if you would run a full node, 2 MB are far away from any need to upgrade your cpu or something. It's one block in average each 10 minutes. That can be very easily handle by practically every computer nowadays.
hero member
Activity: 1050
Merit: 681
February 11, 2016, 03:35:32 AM
I run the Bitcoin Core, with all the default settings. Am I classified as a full node user? I have low end CPU.
Technically yes. There's good information on Bitcoin.org in regards to full nodes. Albeit if you don't forward port 8333 and run it constantly you don't really have a full node.

My PC is bought few years ago, so it is surely low end. I run full node. Bitcoin core takes less than 1% of cpu and bandwith.
The age of a PC does not really tell us anything. How about you share the specifications?

I have the Intel CPU G1610. I used it to mine as well as run Bitcoin Core. I do not see any problem.
full member
Activity: 182
Merit: 101
February 10, 2016, 08:54:45 AM
I run the Bitcoin Core, with all the default settings. Am I classified as a full node user? I have low end CPU.
Technically yes. There's good information on Bitcoin.org in regards to full nodes. Albeit if you don't forward port 8333 and run it constantly you don't really have a full node.

My PC is bought few years ago, so it is surely low end. I run full node. Bitcoin core takes less than 1% of cpu and bandwith.
The age of a PC does not really tell us anything. How about you share the specifications?

I'll do it when I get back home (I don't remember them by heart). But it wasn't any high end machine even when I bought it.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
February 10, 2016, 08:49:54 AM
I run the Bitcoin Core, with all the default settings. Am I classified as a full node user? I have low end CPU.
Technically yes. There's good information on Bitcoin.org in regards to full nodes. Albeit if you don't forward port 8333 and run it constantly you don't really have a full node.

My PC is bought few years ago, so it is surely low end. I run full node. Bitcoin core takes less than 1% of cpu and bandwith.
The age of a PC does not really tell us anything. How about you share the specifications?
full member
Activity: 182
Merit: 101
February 10, 2016, 08:22:36 AM
My PC is bought few years ago, so it is surely low end. I run full node. Bitcoin core takes less than 1% of cpu and bandwith.
sr. member
Activity: 672
Merit: 250
February 10, 2016, 07:41:46 AM
Does it mean we have to have fast CPU or powerful computer to do that? Is that required for ordinary Core wallet holders?
Define 'ordinary Core wallet holders'? If you are using Bitcoin Core, then you need to sync up with the network in order to send out/see received transactions. However, unless you're running full nodes you don't really need to bother yourself with the requirements.

I run the Bitcoin Core, with all the default settings. Am I classified as a full node user? I have low end CPU.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
February 10, 2016, 05:44:10 AM
Does it mean we have to have fast CPU or powerful computer to do that? Is that required for ordinary Core wallet holders?
Define 'ordinary Core wallet holders'? If you are using Bitcoin Core, then you need to sync up with the network in order to send out/see received transactions. However, unless you're running full nodes you don't really need to bother yourself with the requirements.
Pages:
Jump to: