Topic: Egad. 81,000 + Transactions Unconfirmed. Again. Ugh! (Read 8826 times)
50 megabytes of mempool constantly since a week on my full node. I think that the only decent way to trim well this huge amount of unconfirmed transactions will be to raise the minimum relay fee to 0.0001 BTC per kB
Obviously the limit is in the codebase
And your quote from bitcoinunlimited.info contradicts that very basic fact.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1004
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
We believe that the block size is NOT part of blockchain consensus...
What "you" believe has zero relevance. The block size was always part of the consensus rules else they'd not need a HF to change.Me? No that is a quote from bitcoinunlimited.info.
Obviously the limit is in the codebase, and we think removing it is a good idea.
So from our point of view, this facilitates consensus, not breaks it.
Perhaps you still haven't gained the ability to discern facts from opinions.
Your point about consensus depends on one's point-of-view.
No.We believe that the block size is NOT part of blockchain consensus...
What "you" believe has zero relevance. The block size was always part of the consensus rules else they'd not need a HF to change.You are certainly correct that it is not tested.
There we have it: BU is not even tested.If a spammer is willing to pay $1000+ per hour on fees, that should be enough to create a network that can withstand it. I don't see any other way to stop the spam.
That amount of money is trivial for a fair number of people. You are talking beyond decentralized networking capabilities. There are limits to all of this you know? To quote BU:
We believe that the block size is NOT part of blockchain consensus...
Then they're out of their tiny little minds.
From the Bitcoin source code, consensus.h:
Code:
/** The maximum allowed size for a block excluding witness data, in bytes (network rule) */
static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_BASE_SIZE = 1000000;
static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_BASE_SIZE = 1000000;
If that person is willing to pay for it, the network should just be able to handle it. Email spam makes up 97% of the 200 billion emails sent each day. The email system was adjusted in such a way that it can handle it, instead of making people wait longer to send an email.
That statement is complete nonsense. In no way will Bitcoin be able to sustain the amount of spam that it can be thrown at it. No-one will be able to trust the validity of on-chain transactions, as BU can fork or reorg itself unexpectedly at any time. The ability to alter the consensus rules on the fly turns forks and re-orgs into a feature, when they're highly undesirable for a stable uniform blockchain.
This makes sense. It's the first time I read about this as a reason not to go for BU. legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1004
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
BU breaks consensus and attempts to change the security model into something that isn't even adequately tested.
Your point about consensus depends on one's point-of-view.
To quote BU:
We believe that the block size is NOT part of blockchain consensus...
By moving the blocksize limit from the protocol layer to the transport layer,
Bitcoin Unlimited removes the only point of central control in the Bitcoin economy -
the blocksize limit - and returns it to the nodes and the miners.
You are certainly correct that it is not tested.
I suppose that supporters of BU like myself feel that the
risk is small compared with the damage that is likely to
come by allowing the current impasse and stagnation to continue, and/or allowing core to continue its governance.
51% of mining power already has defacto control of the network.
Wrong that is not 'control'. They can attempt to attack the network, after which they would get 'fired' with a algorithm change. Therefore, BU doesn't actually "give miners more power", it just facilitates consensus.
BU breaks consensus and attempts to change the security model into something that isn't even adequately tested.BU facilitates breaking consensus, not enforcing it. That's the whole point of BU.
No-one will be able to trust the validity of on-chain transactions, as BU can fork ior reorg tself unexpectedly at any time. The ability to alter the consensus rules on the fly turns forks and re-orgs into a feature, when they're highly undesirable for a stable uniform blockchain.
Indeed. No-one will be able to trust the validity of on-chain transactions, as BU can fork ior reorg tself unexpectedly at any time. The ability to alter the consensus rules on the fly turns forks and re-orgs into a feature, when they're highly undesirable for a stable uniform blockchain.
Therefore, BU doesn't actually "give miners more power", it just facilitates consensus.
BU facilitates breaking consensus, not enforcing it. That's the whole point of BU.
No-one will be able to trust the validity of on-chain transactions, as BU can fork or reorg itself unexpectedly at any time. The ability to alter the consensus rules on the fly turns forks and re-orgs into a feature, when they're highly undesirable for a stable uniform blockchain.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1004
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Giving more power to miners is one of the absurdest ideas that I've heard in a long time. Miners are incentivized by self-greed, not the greater good. This isn't socialism.
51% of mining power already has defacto control of the network. As long as honest nodes
control a majority of hashing power, the network will function well,
whether we are talking about avoiding empty blocks, avoiding super large blocks, or whatever.
Therefore, BU doesn't actually "give miners more power", it just facilitates consensus.
As I mentioned, I don't agree with your conclusions, but please tell us:
It doesn't matter even if you don't agree that the Earth is a planet TBH.In your vision of how the network should scale, how would it be ddos/spam resistant?
If I had the perfect answer to that question, we wouldn't be in this situation, would we now?And if miners aren't going to be ones enforcing good policies (i.e. BU) , who will?
Giving more power to miners is one of the absurdest ideas that I've heard in a long time. Miners are incentivized by self-greed, not the greater good. This isn't socialism. Here's an older article on your idea of no block size limit: https://medium.com/@bergealex4/bitcoin-is-unstable-without-the-block-size-size-limit-70db07070a54#.h8qns8clk
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1004
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Couldn't this be a failing piece of software stuck in a loop?
That would fall under the list of reasons called 'other'. Yes that is a possibility.If that person is willing to pay for it, the network should just be able to handle it. Email spam makes up 97% of the 200 billion emails sent each day. The email system was adjusted in such a way that it can handle it, instead of making people wait longer to send an email.
That statement is complete nonsense. In no way will Bitcoin be able to sustain the amount of spam that it can be thrown at it. No matter what the reason is, spam won't go away, which means the network should be able to handle it without interrupting normal usage.
DDoS can take down centralized systems which are highly efficient in comparison. How do you expect a decentralized system to resist its own DoS?If a miner is willing to risk 12.5 BTC by making an absurdly large block, that's an expensive gamble.
See my last assertion. Either you mine absurdly large blocks to process the transactions or you are left with a overflowing mempool. Big blocks solve nothing.As I mentioned, I don't agree with your conclusions, but please tell us:
In your vision of how the network should scale, how would it be ddos/spam resistant? And if miners aren't going to be ones enforcing good policies (i.e. BU) , who will?
Couldn't this be a failing piece of software stuck in a loop?
That would fall under the list of reasons called 'other'. Yes that is a possibility.If that person is willing to pay for it, the network should just be able to handle it. Email spam makes up 97% of the 200 billion emails sent each day. The email system was adjusted in such a way that it can handle it, instead of making people wait longer to send an email.
That statement is complete nonsense. In no way will Bitcoin be able to sustain the amount of spam that it can be thrown at it. No matter what the reason is, spam won't go away, which means the network should be able to handle it without interrupting normal usage.
DDoS can take down centralized systems which are highly efficient in comparison. How do you expect a decentralized system to resist its own DoS?If a miner is willing to risk 12.5 BTC by making an absurdly large block, that's an expensive gamble.
See my last assertion. Either you mine absurdly large blocks to process the transactions or you are left with a overflowing mempool. Big blocks solve nothing. The Bitcoin network is being attacked by spam again.
https://blockchain.info/address/3QQB6AWxaga6wTs6Xwq8FYppgrGinGu15f
31981 transactions.
Couldn't this be a failing piece of software stuck in a loop?https://blockchain.info/address/3QQB6AWxaga6wTs6Xwq8FYppgrGinGu15f
31981 transactions.
2) Some entity is heavily spamming the Bitcoin network for some malicious reason.
If that person is willing to pay for it, the network should just be able to handle it. Email spam makes up 97% of the 200 billion emails sent each day. The email system was adjusted in such a way that it can handle it, instead of making people wait longer to send an email.Side-effect: You can mine absurdly large blocks and DOS everyone. Absurdly high orphan rates are just the cherry on top of the cake.
If a miner is willing to risk 12.5 BTC by making an absurdly large block, that's an expensive gamble. 
Ok, i should wait for ~ck to show his evidence that other pools were also including these tx's.
Just go to a page of transactions to the same address at an earlier time since ALL those transactions are from the same block you're looking at. eg.https://blockchain.info/tx/cbc7997a133b606c77831b6898ad05b256e9329f3cb553355d2b544e689e4e83
Mined by BTCC
Ok thanks, i need to modify my statement.
This addy is first used in dec 16, but not much. Out of 31000 tx's from this addy, only 500 were sent before the 19/2/17.
(your linked tx was from 18/2/17)
These early tx's were mined a few at a time by many different pools, but also included a good fee - usually 0.0003 (77 sat/byte)
1 block mined by BTC.com (454214) had fees as high as 0.00065 (168 sat/byte)
Hard to call 0.0003 fee spam, let alone 0.00065. Of course these will be confirmed by any miner.
But an attack of that nature would be very expensive for the attacker on any kind of significant scale.
Then, for the other 30500 tx's from 19/2/17 till now, the fee drops to 0.0001 (25 sat/byte) leaving only bitfury mining these tx's at this fee.
And confirming hundreds at a time, see this block from 25/2/17 as another example https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000000022a0a477bb26f65793d501d7e5721715e7ad301a2e2bc5b
Bitfury must be confirming 2000 of these "spam" tx's per day on average.
So yes, the first few hundred tx's paid good fees and were mined by many pools, a few tx's at a time,
the other 30500 tx's seem to be exclusively mined by bitfury, for a much smaller fee.
-------
Lauda, i don't tweet either.
btw - as if by magic the shitpost was gone!
Ok, i should wait for ~ck to show his evidence that other pools were also including these tx's.
Just go to a page of transactions to the same address at an earlier time since ALL those transactions are from the same block you're looking at. eg.https://blockchain.info/tx/cbc7997a133b606c77831b6898ad05b256e9329f3cb553355d2b544e689e4e83
Mined by BTCC
Ok, i should wait for ~ck to show his evidence that other pools were also including these tx's.
Sure.Will you tweet bitfury to ask about that block i linked, and all 31000 tx's in general.
I would if I had social media. That's why I asked you to do it. Well, anyone reading this please tweet Alex. https://twitter.com/sysmannetI don't see why bitfury would have to include any of these tx's to test how to fill a block, when the mempool is at 10's of thousands.
Likewise, but this would fit their 'testing the inclusion of high number of TXs' per block. At this size they can include at least 2.5k TXs.You never said "it's a BU attack" but that was top reason on both lists. You were certainly implying that was what you thought and wanted others to see.
No. The list is not sorted based on probability, i.e. the numbering doesn't represent anything. It is just a list of potential causes without any particular order.It is me that keeps telling you that these tx's are bigger than median, or bigger than average. I even stated how big they are "around 380 bytes".
Median TX size < these TXs < average TX size (~500 bytes). See here: https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin/historical/1w-f-tsize_per_avg-11101Just report that valueless shitposter above you and the mods may remove it.
2 posts and 2 minutes later nyanhtet rehashed his wisdom https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/if-no-one-spends-bitcoin-what-might-happen-1550041
"Bitcoin inverted to replace fiat money, if no one use, will replace by another one."
Or maybe he will be the next shitposter promoted?
We both know that is not likely going to happen. It is more likely that he will become the next staff member. 2 posts and 2 minutes later nyanhtet rehashed his wisdom https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/if-no-one-spends-bitcoin-what-might-happen-1550041
"Bitcoin inverted to replace fiat money, if no one use, will replace by another one."
Or maybe he will be the next shitposter promoted?
Ok, i should wait for ~ck to show his evidence that other pools were also including these tx's.
Will you tweet bitfury to ask about that block i linked, and all 31000 tx's in general.
I don't see why bitfury would have to include any of these tx's to test how to fill a block, when the mempool is at 10's of thousands.
You never said "it's a BU attack" but that was top reason on both lists. You were certainly implying that was what you thought and wanted others to see.
I'm not getting this response at all. Why do you keep telling me this? I know how big the tx's are!
It is me that keeps telling you that these tx's are bigger than median, or bigger than average. I even stated how big they are "around 380 bytes".
Just report that valueless shitposter above you and the mods may remove it.
2 posts and 2 minutes later nyanhtet rehashed his wisdom https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/if-no-one-spends-bitcoin-what-might-happen-1550041
"Bitcoin inverted to replace fiat money, if no one use, will replace by another one."
Or maybe he will be the next shitposter promoted?
Will you tweet bitfury to ask about that block i linked, and all 31000 tx's in general.
I don't see why bitfury would have to include any of these tx's to test how to fill a block, when the mempool is at 10's of thousands.
You never said "it's a BU attack" but that was top reason on both lists. You were certainly implying that was what you thought and wanted others to see.
I'm not getting this response at all. Why do you keep telling me this? I know how big the tx's are!
It is me that keeps telling you that these tx's are bigger than median, or bigger than average. I even stated how big they are "around 380 bytes".
Just report that valueless shitposter above you and the mods may remove it.
2 posts and 2 minutes later nyanhtet rehashed his wisdom https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/if-no-one-spends-bitcoin-what-might-happen-1550041
"Bitcoin inverted to replace fiat money, if no one use, will replace by another one."
Or maybe he will be the next shitposter promoted?
When every tx is timestamped at the exact same time every block that carries those tx is mined, always by the same pool - bitfury- then we can conclude it is a bitfury address. You just said bitfury were "testing", now you think it is not their address?
You didn't understand anything from my post; stop jumping to conclusions. Bitfury was testing how to include the most number of transactions per block from the mempool. This does not include creating their own transactions which is counter-intuitive!How am i misinformed? You thought it was a BU attack not me.
Wrong. I laid out some possible reasons behind the attack. I never said it was a "BU attack".I know the tx is well above median, i just told you that 'cos you previously said "these transactions aren't large in size"
If the transactions are below the average TX size, then they aren't large in size. Sequitur. If Bitcoin can't resolve high fee and transaction delay, will replace by another one.
Another example of nonsense from people with impaired knowledge. Any other altcoin faces the same problems if not worse (e.g. XMR, ETH scalability). P.S. Lisk is a shitcoin. 
When every tx is timestamped at the exact same time every block that carries those tx is mined, always by the same pool - bitfury- then we can conclude it is a bitfury address. You just said bitfury were "testing", now you think it is not their address?
How am i misinformed? You thought it was a BU attack not me.
I know the tx is well above median, i just told you that 'cos you previously said "these transactions aren't large in size"
Jump to: