Topic: Enjoy? - page 5. (Read 16588 times)
Bitcoin wasn't created to deal with low value transactions as far as I know. If you want to send an amount that is lower then it's fee, then you are doing something stupid and wrong. But well, that's my opinion.
Hm now this dust rule by Gavin is looking good, right? This rule was controversial when implemented. I think that there are many nodes which did not implement this rule.
Is this dust rule hard? When some miners include such transactions (even if the fee is too low, the priority will rise over time).
But this will always be a trade-off. On the one hand we want free transactions. Even the 0.0001btc fee seems to be high, if you only want to send someone 5 oder 10 cents (USD), because the minimum fee is 6cent at the moment. But if you lower the fee, the network get's spamed.
Is this dust rule hard? When some miners include such transactions (even if the fee is too low, the priority will rise over time).
But this will always be a trade-off. On the one hand we want free transactions. Even the 0.0001btc fee seems to be high, if you only want to send someone 5 oder 10 cents (USD), because the minimum fee is 6cent at the moment. But if you lower the fee, the network get's spamed.
Damn, I'm disappointed. I received 2 satoshis and I was hoping to give them one day to my grandchildren. Now you guys tell me they will never confirm... Sadness.
I lolled. Why should we be worried? You can sent out 1200 transactions of 1 satoshi's without a problem. If it ever confirms or get confirmed at all is the second question and the answer to that is most likely not. Almost all miners will simply ignore this transaction.
What if its a test for something bigger? What if someone decides to try 12,000,000 transactions now..
OMG! Or worse?! What if somebody decides to try to send 22,000,000 1BTC transactions!
what if the blockchain begins to think for itself and pulls skynet on our asses?
Then we have to find John Connor, or his mom, or the governator, I think.
Their software won't transfer from a wallet with unconfirmed transactions.
might be time to get that fixed?
Yes and that is besides the point. It is much harder to fix 100's or 1000's of clients instead of have something that cleans the dust out before it causes problems. The real fix is probably to get the pools to throw out these absurd transactions.
No pool has included these "absurd transactions" that is why it is still unconfirmed.
Ahh ... I stand corrected.
Their software won't transfer from a wallet with unconfirmed transactions.
might be time to get that fixed?
Yes and that is besides the point. It is much harder to fix 100's or 1000's of clients instead of have something that cleans the dust out before it causes problems. The real fix is probably to get the pools to throw out these absurd transactions.
No pool has included these "absurd transactions" that is why it is still unconfirmed.
Their software won't transfer from a wallet with unconfirmed transactions.
might be time to get that fixed?
Yes and that is besides the point. It is much harder to fix 100's or 1000's of clients instead of have something that cleans the dust out before it causes problems. The real fix is probably to get the pools to throw out these absurd transactions.
Their software won't transfer from a wallet with unconfirmed transactions.
might be time to get that fixed?
I wouldn't complain if someone gave me free stuff.. Seriously tho, I can't really see anything to worry about.
That stupid 1 Satoshi spam may have cost me .05 BTC. It isn't much money but it has at least cost others LOTS of wasted time. Anytime someone is stealing your time it isn't free.
A wallet I was working with a vendor with got spammed. Their software won't transfer from a wallet with unconfirmed transactions. Since it was their wallet I'm at their mercy to manually transfer the funds because the connection between that wallet and my account was broken.
You can keep your free stuff!
Quote
How would you propose changing it? I guess optionally you could hide transactions below a certain threshold (possibly the same limit as they will be uneconomical to spend anyways), but you can "undo" Bitcoin transactions even ones you don't "want".
Quote
There is one other relevant rule: transactions with very small outputs ("dust" -- around 5,000 satoshis, based on the -minrelaytxfee setting) are considered non-standard and are not relayed.
Simple ignore all non-standard TXs, regardless if they belong to your wallet. Litecoin already has a dust hard limit. All inputs smaller 0.00001 are ignored by the client.
Sure you can remove the spam from your wallet, but implementing a new rule would discourage spam like this.
Quote
I wouldn't complain if someone gave me free stuff.. Seriously tho, I can't really see anything to worry about.
You are not able to spend the "free stuff" (unless a miner includes this spam into a block, which I doubt). It is just there the bloat your wallet and history. Look at the last merges, devs are already fixing the malleability problem
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1xniph/look_at_the_last_merges_devs_are_already_fixing/
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1xniph/look_at_the_last_merges_devs_are_already_fixing/
funny that they had to get attacked before they lifted a finger... snotty asses
I wouldn't complain if someone gave me free stuff.. Seriously tho, I can't really see anything to worry about.
Quote
If you are running the QT client you aren't helping the spammer but if you got spammed it is going to show up.
This should be changed. Right now users can be spammed with thousands of TXs. I am sure having a few hundred TXs in your History that you can't spend sucks. Sure you can prune them with pywallet but 90% of the users won't don't that. Especially mobile users.How would you propose changing it? I guess optionally you could hide transactions below a certain threshold (possibly the same limit as they will be uneconomical to spend anyways), but you can "undo" Bitcoin transactions even ones you don't "want".
Quote
If you are running the QT client you aren't helping the spammer but if you got spammed it is going to show up.
This should be changed. Right now users can be spammed with thousands of TXs. I am sure having a few hundred TXs in your History that you can't spend sucks. Sure you can prune them with pywallet but 90% of the users won't don't that. Especially mobile users. I also thought also about b). If you know that Blockchain.info relays spam, why relay the tx to all nodes yourself.
Well I don't know for sure if it the attacker has a direct connection OR if blockchain.info is relaying these non-standard transactions. Without being on the receiving end of a spam attack I can't see where it is coming from.
Just putting both out as a possibility. The attack may be doing all this on his own, or he may be just relaying them to blockchain.info knowing it will do the relaying for him, or he may be relaying them in additional to blockchain.info to increase the "coverage". The relaying will stop when it hits a reference client so having multiple super nodes "helping" means it will reach more nodes.
Quote
Reference Implementation doesn't not relay non-standard tx but doesn't ignore them either if they belong to your own wallet.
Yes that is a good way to put it. If you are running the QT client you aren't helping the spammer but if you got spammed it is going to show up.
Quote
Quote
and will not show up in your wallet until they are included in a block.
This is only true if no one relays the tx to you.Correct but the reference client (and other clients which enforce the same rules) make up a super majority of the bitcoin nodes. Unless the attacker or some other custom super node (possibly blockchain.info) has a direct connection to you it is very likely all of your peers will drop these transactions and never rely them to you.
For example, maybe I was spammed and just don't know it because all my direct peers are nodes running the reference client (or one with similar relay rules).
Thanks for that simple explanation. Yet some people don't understand that.
That's life 
Thanks for that simple explanation. Yet some people don't understand that.
That's life WRONG - It wasn't my software, it was software at a vendor I was trying to use. So far we know of two different places where this was a problem including the blockchain.info sweep function. There are likely many more we don't know about. For most people this makes up what is perceived to be the bitcoin network. It doesn't matter that it is outside the network for the average person.
The author of the software. His problem. It is getting fixed anyways, it wasn't a priority issue. The point is that as Bitcoin goes mainstream, it can't afford to have these types of issues. Things need to work smoothly all the time for Bitcoin to succeed. Granted that in the scheme of current events this is a minor issue.
Thanks for that simple explanation. Yet some people don't understand that.
That's life WRONG - It wasn't my software, it was software at a vendor I was trying to use. So far we know of two different places where this was a problem including the blockchain.info sweep function. There are likely many more we don't know about. For most people this makes up what is perceived to be the bitcoin network. It doesn't matter that it is outside the network for the average person.
The author of the software. His problem. It is getting fixed anyways, it wasn't a priority issue. It's easy. It prevents a transaction from being accepted into the Blockchain before a certain timestamp or block is reached. That is the basic explanation of nLockTime. Nothing more, nothing less.
Thanks for that simple explanation. Yet some people don't understand that. Jump to: