Topic: ? Increase fees to lower spam ; Decrease fees higher spam ? (Read 443 times)

I do not believe that increasing your transaction fees can lower your spam rate or decreasing the transaction fee will increase your spam rate, I think transaction fee is related to speed of transaction confirmation and not spamming.

Oh, I see it now. First spammers will bombard the network with spam transactions. Such a huge number cannot be handled resulting in great amount of unconfirmed transactions. Miners had to accept Segwit in order to cater with the problem. If transaction fees are increased, it will lower the spam but users will run away.

Why don't they do same with them or try to differentiate between spam and real transactions by using Honey pot or any other technique. I hope I am not totally out of the league here. Also, I would like to know why they are supporting BCC and BU.

What ? Seriously ? The increase amount of fee is because of spam ? Damn, I don't know anything about that. Damn bro, this is so bad. I really need Bitcoin to pay my bills. I hope I can earn more Bitcoin than before.

How is LN a bank? It is open source and anyone can run a lightening node. Yeah, some wallet providers or exchanges would be operating large hubs. Users are using the services provided by these exchanges and wallets and if they also use their payment channels, is there anything wrong in it? No.

PayPal and LN, really, in LN you have to lock up funds temporarily to process off chain transactions, but still you have absolute control over your funds. On chain transactions are necessary to open and close a payment channel.

LN can scale bitcoin to VISA standards. Bitcoin isn't about miners only, spamming, fee manipulation. With LN and other implementations spamming would become expensive and users can choose if they want to make an on chain transaction with a higher fee or off chain transaction at a lower fee. It's as simple as that. LN is an additional layer so if you don't want to use it, you don't have to use it.

LN might cut-short the profitability of miners/mining businesses, but it puts users on a level ground with miners.

First spammers who sent spam transactions are neither bothered about increase or decrease in bock size or transaction fee.What they need is to support at first BU and now BCC by just trying to prove that bitcoin is no more worth for sending transactions and users must switch to BCC now.This was their hidden agenda.Core team presented segwit as a solution for this problem.But miners were not ready for that since their fees would get reduced due to increase in block size.At last,when unconfirmed transactions became very high,they had no other way than accepting segwit.So,increase in fee would lower the spam,but would eventualy kill total bitcoin itself since more would switch to other coins for low fee transactons.

honestly i dont see much difference between low fees and higher fees , right now blockchain take an ages to process payment even with a decent fee , segwit just ruined everything for example i deposit on nitrogen 100$ and its takes 7 hours wsith 3$ fees , blockchain sucks

Keeping in mind the end goal to make an accumulation the spammer needs just issue more than C - N transactions every second, where C is viable limit of the Network and N is the ordinary activity.

At present C= ~1.32 kB/s (~790kB/block) and N = ~0.67 kB/s (~400 kB/block), so a spammer needs to issue just ~0.65 kB/s (~390 kB/block) to begin and manage a build-up. (Note that the successful limit is not as much as the hypothetical 1.67 kB/s (1000 kB/block) on the grounds that there are many purge pieces.)

On the off chance that the piece measure constrain were lifted to 8 MB, keeping a similar level of discharge squares, C would be duplicated by 8, to C' = ~10.53 kB/s (6300 kB/block). Nonetheless, N would keep on increasing gradually, and a long time from now would even now presumably be under 2. At that point the aggressor would need to issue C' - N = 8.53 kB/s (5900 kB/block) to make and support an excess, which is 13 times what it needs today.

that is not the "problem" that is the design. when they spam attack everybody burns not just the attacker. and unless you can come up with a way to "prevent spam transactions" there is no way of stopping it and as i said increasing the block size and also SegWit does not solve anything.

i am highly skeptical of this one. the previous block before 479469 was not that long ago and it was 93 kB. any idiot knows that spam attack on an empty block has failure written all over it.
this to me seems more like a publicity stunt to fill the media with the news that "BCC mined first 8 MB block". and meanwhile all the other blocks are completely empty.

unless you can show me historical data of BCC mempool i stand on what i said. i doubt 90% of 37,814 tx in 479469 even met the mempool. it was BitClub Network's transactions. not a spam attack.
and you also seem to have forgotten that the spam attack on bitcoin was not a small 37,814 tx. it was a large scale 120,000+ tx over an already full block each containing 2000-3000 transactions.

p.s. that article you linked does not provide any proof of spam attack hence proving my point about this being a publicity stunt once more.

let me simplify it for you, maybe you can understand it.
imagine a block can contain 1000 tx.
if nobody is uses it (like majority of altcoins) the blocks will have 10 tx in each.
now if you want to spam attack blocks like these you need to make 990 tx. and since there is a minimum tx fee that will cost you a lot.
this is why nobody has ever spam attacked an altcoin

now imagine the same block which can only contain 1000 tx.
imagine that coin is being used a lot more that it is nearly full. containing 990 tx from real users.
to spam this block you only need to create 10+ tx and that has nearly no cost for you. you can simply create >10 tx and cause fees to go up as there will be more and more transactions left out because there is no more room in the block.

in short, unless you increase the block size to infinity or you assume that nobody will ever use that block space anyways (like the assumption that altcoins make with 20 MB blocks every 2 min) you can not prevent a spam attack.
and that is the current situation with bitcoin cash. the blocks only contain 90 tx on average. and that is about 150 kB out of 8 MB.

In as much as there is nothing wrong in compensating the works of the miners which I have no issue with but it been too high is a concern for many which might eventually reduce the influence of bitcoin and people will start considering other options. Although, not technically equipped but my understanding of August 1 is to increase the block size of bitcoin to cater of the increased volume of transactions but it seems that is not what is happening here as the increase is for another coin entirely which means the reduced fees witnessed now is just temporary.

you just created a statement yourself and then ask us what "you" said means?! that is weird

---

fees are there to do 2 things:
1. to compensate for the work that miners do in the far away future when a couple more halvings have happened and the block reward is small.
2. to prevent spam attack because it becomes more and more expensive for a spammer to keep the attack up.

in this case, increasing the block size to 8 MB does not solve anything at all. if anything it makes things even worse. a lower fee means a cheaper attack.
the fact that nobody has yet performed a spam attack on BCH is firstly because the blocks are completely empty (mostly ~100 kB) and also it can mean the people who were spamming bitcoin were supporting BCH!

"Increase fees to lower spam ; Decrease fees higher spam"

What does the above mean and what does it have to do with Bitcoin?