Idea to help prevent transaction spam - page 2.

nster

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: theymos on April 08, 2011, 07:15:04 PM

With 0.001, a spammer can send 10,000 transactions with just 10 BTC, which seems too cheap. I think 0.01 is fine for now.

In any case, keeping transactions completely free for as long as possible is desirable. A 0.0000001 fee will seem much more expensive than "free" to people considering using Bitcoin.

Agreed. One of the biggest problems with just the current 0.01 transaction fee as optional, is when the bitcoin faucet adds a 0.01 transaction fee to a 0.05 freebie, that's a 20% fee to send out coins. The faucet is probably one of the largest contributors to the transaction fees, benefiting the miners, not the new users testing out the coins.

Maybe we should encourage pool operators to take the transaction fees and send them back to the faucet Wink

RE: the spam problem... I dunno. Free transactions are awesome. But when you start doing IP restrictions or limiting, or something like that, the majority of people you end up effecting are the legitimate users. Spammers or exploiters simply look at the open source code, and figure a way around it be it their botnet, proxies, or whatever.

0.01 fee for transactions under 0.05 then lol

theymos

administrator

Activity: 5222

Merit: 13032

With 0.001, a spammer can send 10,000 transactions with just 10 BTC, which seems too cheap. I think 0.01 is fine for now.

In any case, keeping transactions completely free for as long as possible is desirable. A 0.0000001 fee will seem much more expensive than "free" to people considering using Bitcoin.

nster

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Gavin Andresen on April 08, 2011, 06:00:49 PM

Quote from: marcus_of_augustus on April 08, 2011, 05:41:36 PM

What about an infinitesimal, but non-zero transaction fee on all transactions?

Is anyone but the spammers going to notice that they just got 0.00000001 clipped off their transaction?

The problem with that idea is if the transaction fee is that low spammers won't notice it either. They can just invest 0.01 BTC and send millions of "non-free" transactions.

What about adding an extra precision and requiring 0.001 fee on every single transaction?

That would be 1 BTC per thousand transaction... Not much really. Any higher and the rest of the BTC community suffers, but at 1 BTC per thousand it is not very costly for those spammers.

Still, I wouldn't oppose an obligatory 0.001 fee.... Or perhaps a 0.01 fee to every transaction under 0.10 ?

Gavin Andresen

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 2314

Chief Scientist

Quote from: marcus_of_augustus on April 08, 2011, 05:41:36 PM

What about an infinitesimal, but non-zero transaction fee on all transactions?

Is anyone but the spammers going to notice that they just got 0.00000001 clipped off their transaction?

The problem with that idea is if the transaction fee is that low spammers won't notice it either. They can just invest 0.01 BTC and send millions of "non-free" transactions.

marcus_of_augustus

legendary

Activity: 3920

Merit: 2349

Eadem mutata resurgo

What about an infinitesimal, but non-zero transaction fee on all transactions?

Is anyone but the spammers going to notice that they just got 0.00000001 clipped off their transaction?

At some point free transactions are unsustainable because they do not reflect the true cost to the miners for maintaining network integrity. Workaround code to defend an ideal will get kludgy after a point.

Gavin Andresen

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 2314

Chief Scientist

Limit-per-ip-range is an interesting idea.

I'd like to give the current not-yet-released solution a month or two to work before trying something else. I see two possible directions:

+ Limit-per-{connection,ip-range}. Trouble with this is an attacker who has multiple IPs (think botnet operator) can mount a distributed flood attack.

or/and

+ Take transaction priority into account when deciding what to drop.

I'd really like to talk to a p2p network researcher; it seems to me it might be possible to keep some statistics on what "typical" bitcoin network traffic looks like; perhaps nodes could drop neighbors if they notice network traffic from them looks way out of whack (e.g. sending a much-larger-than-typical number of addr messages or free transactions or...).

khal

hero member

Activity: 540

Merit: 500

Quote from: theymos on April 07, 2011, 07:27:25 PM

but only on a per-IP basis (and maybe also by larger IP blocks).

If your node has 50 connections and you send each transaction to only 1 node (with a modified software), you could send 50 x the limit and those 50 nodes will relay all transactions. To limit that, the limit must be low, but i don't like a low limit.

If you are mybitcoin or else, a low limit will be blocking, and fees will be needed if you want instant transactions... But does fees existed for this reason too (putting a limit to free transactions) ?

I see another potential problem : a relaying node will accept, for example, 500 free transactions by ip maximum. It could accept 1510 free transactions from 4 nodes (500,500,500,10) but could only transmit 500 of them to other nodes ? So, a spamming node will limit other nodes too.
[edit]Thoses 10 transactions will be sent to other nodes, and then be relayed. You would be very unlucky to send your 10 transactions to the same all nodes who recevied 1500 transactions. But, this could be a way to block a lot of nodes, by sending a amount of transaction just below the limit... => same situation a now[/edit]

I agree it's a better method than the current one though.

theymos

administrator

Activity: 5222

Merit: 13032

Quote from: nster on April 07, 2011, 10:45:44 PM

how does it originally work?

Here is the version in the current release:

Code:

// Limit free transactions per 10 minutes
if (nFees < CENT && GetBoolArg("-limitfreerelay"))
{
static int64 nNextReset;
static int64 nFreeCount;
if (GetTime() > nNextReset)
{
nNextReset = GetTime() + 10 * 60;
nFreeCount = 0;
}
if (nFreeCount > 150000 && !IsFromMe())
return error("AcceptToMemoryPool() : free transaction rejected by rate limiter");
nFreeCount += nSize;
}

The effect of this is that the entire network starts rejecting free transactions at the same time. The latest Git version of limitfreerelay (now enabled by default) has a better method for deciding when to turn off free transactions, but the entire network still turns it off at around the same time. This is bad because a constant spam attack will make it impossible to ever send a free transaction. By blocking per IP address instead of globally, it's more difficult for an attacker to do this.

nster

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Quote from: theymos on April 07, 2011, 10:41:28 PM

Quote from: nster on April 07, 2011, 10:37:14 PM

How fast are these spams? could putting a limit of one send transaction per minute help?

That's what limitfreerelay does (though this is disabled by default in the latest release). I'm proposing to apply it per IP so an attacker can't turn off free transactions over the whole network so easily.

how does it originally work?

theymos

administrator

Activity: 5222

Merit: 13032

Quote from: nster on April 07, 2011, 10:37:14 PM

How fast are these spams? could putting a limit of one send transaction per minute help?

That's what limitfreerelay does (though this is disabled by default in the latest release). I'm proposing to apply it per IP so an attacker can't turn off free transactions over the whole network so easily.

nster

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

How fast are these spams? could putting a limit of one send transaction per minute help?

theymos

administrator

Activity: 5222

Merit: 13032

Quote from: Jim Hyslop on April 07, 2011, 10:12:28 PM

I'm not clear what you mean by "transaction spam."

People sending 0.01 back and forth to attack the system.

Jim Hyslop

member

Activity: 98

Merit: 20

I'm not clear what you mean by "transaction spam."

grue

legendary

Activity: 2058

Merit: 1452

proxies and VPNs are really easy to get.

eMansipater

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 273

This seems like a good mitigation strategy.

theymos

administrator

Activity: 5222

Merit: 13032

Quote from: ?? on ??

Wouldn't that make free services like mybitcoin blocked by their neighbors unless they paid transaction fees?

With the current limitfreerelay system, they'd be blocked anyway, just network-wide instead of locally.

theymos

administrator

Activity: 5222

Merit: 13032

Spamming "addr" messages is not very effective because your immediate peers will not broadcast addresses that they've already seen before. They create a "wall" around the spammer. This would be a nice feature to have for transactions, as well.

Implementation seems pretty simple: "limitfreerelay" restrictions would not apply to all transactions, but only on a per-IP basis (and maybe also by larger IP blocks). The spammer would be blocked by all of its immediate peers after sending the spam, creating a "wall". These peers would be blocked by some of their peers (only those who first received the transaction from the peer), etc.

The result should be that only the spammer's "neighborhood" of nodes ends up blocking free transactions. Most of the network still accepts free transactions. This makes saturating the network's free transaction relay allowance much more difficult than the currently limitfreerelay system.

Topic: Idea to help prevent transaction spam - page 2. (Read 4886 times)