Topic: Enjoy? - page 6. (Read 16596 times)

Gavin Andresen    Feb 12 2014

You may have noticed that some exchanges have temporarily suspended withdrawals and wondering what’s going on or more importantly, what’s being done about it. You can be rest assured that we have identified the issue and are collectively and collaboratively working on a solution.
 
Somebody (or several somebodies) is taking advantage of the transaction malleability issue and relaying mutated versions of transactions. This is exposing bugs in both the reference implementation and some exchange’s software.
 
We (core dev team, developers at the exchanges, and even big mining pools) are creating workarounds and fixes right now. This is a denial-of-service attack; whoever is doing this is not stealing coins, but is succeeding in preventing some transactions from confirming. It’s important to note that DoS attacks do not affect people’s bitcoin wallets or funds.
 
Users of the reference implementation who are bitten by this bug may see their bitcoins “tied up” in unconfirmed transactions; we need to update the software to fix that bug, so when they upgrade those coins are returned to the wallet and are available to spend again. Only users who make multiple transactions in a short period of time will be affected.
 
As a result, exchanges are temporarily suspending withdrawals to protect customer funds and prevent funds from being misdirected.
 
Thanks for your patience. Follow us @BTCFoundation for updates as we learn more and make progress.

That is a problem of your software (and whoever made it). If it does have an effect on it, that does not mean it has one of the network or default client.

Yeah I've read that topic. I just don't understand these people. I will openly say that I currently do not know what nLockTime is used for, but I do not post about it claiming random nonsense when I lack the knowledge. That seems the problem in many people. You're most likely correct on the matter.

Why do you assume everywhere is running the same software?   That isn't the case.   I had to have a wallet manually updated because the software couldn't accept a deposit while there were unconfirmed transactions.    Of coarse that is a software problem, but this has shown up at two different places I know of, which means there are like a lot more.
Should the software handle it?  Of course, but it takes time to update software and there are always risks.    
Technically the problem is at the edge of the network, not the network itself.  Functionally though it impacts the use of the network.   Over time the problems will be fixed.    

+1 for you. And well, here is an example on how they treat complex stuff. It's not that complex, but oh well. Someone states that nLockTime is used for Reverse Transactions. I could be wrong about my statement, but I highly doubt it since I used it to create LockMyCoins (which is currently being redone).

Wrong theories aren't worth much.  Transactions aren't sent to a particular address, there is nothing to trace.


Um there is thing called the blockchain which already contains every valid address that has received bitcoins.  For an "attacker" to send you a satoshi they would already by definition need to know your address and know it is valid.   

Bitcoin private keys can't be brute forced.  There isn't enough energy in our solar system.   If they could then someone sending you a satoshi is the least of your worries. 

No it does not. Please educate yourself before posting nonsense.
These transactions will most likely never be confirmed anyways. They have no impact on the network.

No it does not. Please educate yourself before posting nonsense.
These transactions will most likely never be confirmed anyways. They have no impact on the network.

That would be a pretty stupid fault in the network, using common sense one must realize that this is not the case.
90-95% users here now lack a fair amount of knowledge, I don't even wanna begin imagining how they see the complex stuff..

It is interfering with normal transactions.   Maybe not everywhere but at least some operations.  

Is the person doing this manually though? It would take a lot of time to do this for little gain.

It is interfering with normal transactions.   Maybe not everywhere but at least some operations.  

I'm glad that I was correct, because I thought that I was going insane and that I should read up on the Bitcoin Network, again.

Too many people here talk before acquiring enough knowledge, sadly.
Correct, a paper wallet can not become unusable because of a dust transaction when even if it would get confirmed.

That is pure bullshit. Why would a paper wallet become unusable because of a dust transaction that will never be confirmed? Makes no sense to me.

and will not show up in your wallet until they are included in a block.

Why do these transactions even get relayed?
https://blockchain.info/de/tx/5fb080b8ba88696a97c44f6ba9bd26185a884fbdcd7a15c427e889915483e312


BTW: Is a transaction that doesn't not match the fee requirement also considered as a non standard tx?

EDIT: Seems like the the sender is directly connected to Blockchain.info
https://blockchain.info/de/ip-address/83.223.162.123
But this doesn't not explain why people receive them in their wallets.

Dusting is just creating a lot of very small transactions.   It wastes space in the block chain with these dust transactions that still take up room.   I'm not clear on all the applications of it.   There are some theories on how it could be used to help track a wallet back to an IP.

Another use might be to try to build a list of valid address.   In theory one could generate private keys and see if they match any of the list of known wallets.   If you get a hit you have a valid private key.   That approach is unlikely to work, but it doesn't stop someone from trying.