Topic: Is bitcoin under a spam attack? (Read 1042 times)
I bought spam with my btc. Does that count?
I don't know it's because spam attack but clearly something's wrong.
https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions
There's only 2.2 MB unconfirmed transactions but I'm waiting a confirmation for more than 3 hours.
https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions
There's only 2.2 MB unconfirmed transactions but I'm waiting a confirmation for more than 3 hours.
you 1MB guys get it now?
FFS this is unacceptable
Why do you have to make it so sectarian? Us vs. them? 1MBers vs. the world? The issue we are experiencing right now and during the stress tests can be addressed by disincentivizing spam. What's the point of increasing capacity to make room for spam?
increasing the capacity is a way of disincentivizing spam, because it cost so much to have any effect that its not worth it.
Again, you are purely approaching this from the context of block capacity. Spam transactions have existed long before these stress tests came along, and it's a relevant issue in and of itself. Increasing block size limit doesn't disincentivize spam per se -- only in the very limited sense of performing "stress tests", which is a very recent phenomenon. Arguably, increasing block size limit just encourages spam to continue as is, which is not desirable from the perspective of bloat (either the blockchain or the UTXO). If we do not address this, we are merely making more and more room for spam, not simply for transaction volume that is related to adoption. If we need to increase the block size limit, we should still be striving to maximize the efficiency of the network and the decentralization of nodes.
you 1MB guys get it now?
FFS this is unacceptable
FFS this is unacceptable
I support bigger block size limit, in fact I support no limit for block size, BUT that's not the issue here.
Miners don't confirm all transactions even there are still room in blocks.
I don't know it's because spam attack but clearly something's wrong.
https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions
There's only 2.2 MB unconfirmed transactions but I'm waiting a confirmation for more than 3 hours.
https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions
There's only 2.2 MB unconfirmed transactions but I'm waiting a confirmation for more than 3 hours.
you 1MB guys get it now?
FFS this is unacceptable
Why do you have to make it so sectarian? Us vs. them? 1MBers vs. the world? The issue we are experiencing right now and during the stress tests can be addressed by disincentivizing spam. What's the point of increasing capacity to make room for spam?
increasing the capacity is a way of disincentivizing spam, because it cost so much to have any effect that its not worth it.
I don't know it's because spam attack but clearly something's wrong.
https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions
There's only 2.2 MB unconfirmed transactions but I'm waiting a confirmation for more than 3 hours.
https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions
There's only 2.2 MB unconfirmed transactions but I'm waiting a confirmation for more than 3 hours.
you 1MB guys get it now?
FFS this is unacceptable
Why do you have to make it so sectarian? Us vs. them? 1MBers vs. the world? The issue we are experiencing right now and during the stress tests can be addressed by disincentivizing spam. What's the point of increasing capacity to make room for spam?
IMO, the giant transactions that are consuming blocks at this moment contain outputs that never should have existed on the blockchain to begin with.
I don't know it's because spam attack but clearly something's wrong.
https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions
There's only 2.2 MB unconfirmed transactions but I'm waiting a confirmation for more than 3 hours.
https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions
There's only 2.2 MB unconfirmed transactions but I'm waiting a confirmation for more than 3 hours.
Keep an eye on these addresses:
1JHN9q3vPe25NPzjXX4u1SiAUem6FShu3z
175hfo7BQLmZvBAgLW4Hs2gtVNJj13eXRK
1JLd3YMioeYYENoukbsyHCeaN21CYxDqR
1JYMqE28v6KUW51f5yAj43nQichntQ1yz2
19Fua2AHaJ82P3vorNyhHe9aFi3aYAEY8x
Dust outputs are being cleared. Each new output = 8-10% of every new block found.
I don't know it's because spam attack but clearly something's wrong.
https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions
There's only 2.2 MB unconfirmed transactions but I'm waiting a confirmation for more than 3 hours.
https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions
There's only 2.2 MB unconfirmed transactions but I'm waiting a confirmation for more than 3 hours.
you 1MB guys get it now?
FFS this is unacceptable
I don't know it's because spam attack but clearly something's wrong.
https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions
There's only 2.2 MB unconfirmed transactions but I'm waiting a confirmation for more than 3 hours.
https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions
There's only 2.2 MB unconfirmed transactions but I'm waiting a confirmation for more than 3 hours.
ya thats fine, if you can easily spot is as spam or and require more fees to process spam by all means do it. shouldnt be hard to get miners to do that.
but nothing is stopping the spammer to make his spam taste better, and with the current blocklimit with blocks often full its not very expensive for the spammer so spam with good tasting spam.
but nothing is stopping the spammer to make his spam taste better, and with the current blocklimit with blocks often full its not very expensive for the spammer so spam with good tasting spam.
There isn't? I thought making it considerably more expensive to push spam transactions might act as a disincentive towards doing so. I don't understand this idea that "if blocks are often full (which is not true on average), it is not expensive to spam." Blocks being full doesn't make it cheaper to push transactions; quite the opposite.
cuz the spammer does not need to fill the block completely they are already half full on avg.
if block where on avg 99% full it would be cheap to spam it up so blocks are always 100% full
fee would go up and make the spam attack more expensive but not by much because spammer only really needs to "fill in the gaps" so to speak.
now imagine that blocks are 100% full all the time, how much does it cost to spam the network and create a 365day backlog? its already headed there naturally without spam, so not much!
"All the time" would be a very inaccurate description.
If the spammer does not need to fill 100% of blocks himself, that doesn't make it any cheaper for him on a per-size or per-output basis. The point of addressing spam is itself an end goal -- we don't have to consider it in the context of "OMG, a full block!" The disincentive is there, no hard fork is required, and this may considerably mitigate capacity issues (it may not) while reducing unnecessary bloat.
Sure, transaction volume is increasing on the long term. But I'm not convinced on the proportion of transactions that are "legitimate" (i.e. without spam). The capacity question is a perpetual one -- how do maintain efficient incentives in a constantly evolving economy? This is part of that question.
ya thats fine, if you can easily spot is as spam or and require more fees to process spam by all means do it. shouldnt be hard to get miners to do that.
but nothing is stopping the spammer to make his spam taste better, and with the current blocklimit with blocks often full its not very expensive for the spammer so spam with good tasting spam.
but nothing is stopping the spammer to make his spam taste better, and with the current blocklimit with blocks often full its not very expensive for the spammer so spam with good tasting spam.
There isn't? I thought making it considerably more expensive to push spam transactions might act as a disincentive towards doing so. I don't understand this idea that "if blocks are often full (which is not true on average), it is not expensive to spam." Blocks being full doesn't make it cheaper to push transactions; quite the opposite.
cuz the spammer does not need to fill the block completely they are already half full on avg.
if block where on avg 99% full it would be cheap to spam it up so blocks are always 100% full
fee would go up and make the spam attack more expensive but not by much because spammer only really needs to "fill in the gaps" so to speak.
now imagine that blocks are 100% full all the time, how much does it cost to spam the network and create a 365day backlog? its already headed there naturally without spam, so not much!
The last attack had over 20k unconfirmed transactions in mempool. The current mempool has 8500. I see the suggested fee is still 0.00006btc/kb. Still quite reasonable. The network is not under attack (yet).
ya thats fine, if you can easily spot is as spam or and require more fees to process spam by all means do it. shouldnt be hard to get miners to do that.
but nothing is stopping the spammer to make his spam taste better, and with the current blocklimit with blocks often full its not very expensive for the spammer so spam with good tasting spam.
but nothing is stopping the spammer to make his spam taste better, and with the current blocklimit with blocks often full its not very expensive for the spammer so spam with good tasting spam.
There isn't? I thought making it considerably more expensive to push spam transactions might act as a disincentive towards doing so. I don't understand this idea that "if blocks are often full (which is not true on average), it is not expensive to spam." Blocks being full doesn't make it cheaper to push transactions; quite the opposite.
how expensive is it to fill a block?
cheap like dirt when blocks are already full of legitimate TX
we need to push the block limit higher to make these spam attack more expensive?
cheap like dirt when blocks are already full of legitimate TX
we need to push the block limit higher to make these spam attack more expensive?
Maybe we should actually address the spam itself -- nodes and miners don't have to relay spam. We can raise the default threshold in the Core client. Or we could consider a "per-dust-output" fee as suggested here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/a-new-approach-to-the-block-size-debate-lets-address-the-spam-1171182.
All with the added bonus of reducing UXTO load and therefore increasing the efficiency of all nodes.
sounds good.
but then the spammer might get smart and make his spam TXs undisguisable from legitimate TXs
and if the blocks are already mostly full with legitimate TXs it won't cost much to fill the remainder with solid spam.
What is a "legitimate" transaction, then? The point here is to make it considerably more expensive to spam the network with dust outputs. If a given set of transactions are undisguisable from legitimate ones, they are legitimate, and the issue of spam has been mitigated. Consider the difference between a dust output of 0.000005 or 0.00001 and a "legitimate" (read: spendable with default fees) output of 0.0005. This is the distinction I am making.
ya thats fine, if you can easily spot is as spam or and require more fees to process spam by all means do it. shouldnt be hard to get miners to do that.
but nothing is stopping the spammer to make his spam taste better, and with the current blocklimit with blocks often full its not very expensive for the spammer so spam with good tasting spam.
I don't think it is. At this time mempool is <2mb and unconfirmed transactions at < 2000.
Interesting fact is that there are 6 blocks found in under 5 minutes, which is uncommon i believe, so maybe that helped with faster processing of transactions
Where are you getting this information from? Only blockchain.info? Interestingly enough 2k (unconfirmed) transactions on blockchain info take around 1.6MB, but 7.3k transactions on Blocktrail 52MB. The difference is huge.Interesting fact is that there are 6 blocks found in under 5 minutes, which is uncommon i believe, so maybe that helped with faster processing of transactions
Note: This image was made 1 minute before a block was found and the post was written.
To answer your original question, there is no attack right now. There is no "test" either as the planned one was canceled due to legal pressures.
We can debate the definition of "attack" in this context..... the dust outputs involved in some of the original attacks are now being redeemed by the public. The transactions containing these spent outputs are approximately 75kB in size.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12373932
how expensive is it to fill a block?
cheap like dirt when blocks are already full of legitimate TX
we need to push the block limit higher to make these spam attack more expensive?
cheap like dirt when blocks are already full of legitimate TX
we need to push the block limit higher to make these spam attack more expensive?
Maybe we should actually address the spam itself -- nodes and miners don't have to relay spam. We can raise the default threshold in the Core client. Or we could consider a "per-dust-output" fee as suggested here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/a-new-approach-to-the-block-size-debate-lets-address-the-spam-1171182.
All with the added bonus of reducing UXTO load and therefore increasing the efficiency of all nodes.
sounds good.
but then the spammer might get smart and make his spam TXs undisguisable from legitimate TXs
and if the blocks are already mostly full with legitimate TXs it won't cost much to fill the remainder with solid spam.
What is a "legitimate" transaction, then? The point here is to make it considerably more expensive to spam the network with dust outputs. If a given set of transactions are undisguisable from legitimate ones, they are legitimate, and the issue of spam has been mitigated. Consider the difference between a dust output of 0.000005 or 0.00001 and a "legitimate" (read: spendable with default fees) output of 0.0005. This is the distinction I am making.
I don't think it is. At this time mempool is <2mb and unconfirmed transactions at < 2000.
Interesting fact is that there are 6 blocks found in under 5 minutes, which is uncommon i believe, so maybe that helped with faster processing of transactions
Where are you getting this information from? Only blockchain.info? Interestingly enough 2k (unconfirmed) transactions on blockchain info take around 1.6MB, but 7.3k transactions on Blocktrail 52MB. The difference is huge.Interesting fact is that there are 6 blocks found in under 5 minutes, which is uncommon i believe, so maybe that helped with faster processing of transactions
Note: This image was made 1 minute before a block was found and the post was written.
To answer your original question, there is no attack right now. There is no "test" either as the planned one was canceled due to legal pressures.
Update: Thank you for the link.
how expensive is it to fill a block?
cheap like dirt when blocks are already full of legitimate TX
we need to push the block limit higher to make these spam attack more expensive?
cheap like dirt when blocks are already full of legitimate TX
we need to push the block limit higher to make these spam attack more expensive?
Maybe we should actually address the spam itself -- nodes and miners don't have to relay spam. We can raise the default threshold in the Core client. Or we could consider a "per-dust-output" fee as suggested here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/a-new-approach-to-the-block-size-debate-lets-address-the-spam-1171182.
All with the added bonus of reducing UXTO load and therefore increasing the efficiency of all nodes.
sounds good.
but then the spammer might get smart and make his spam TXs undisguisable from legitimate TXs
and if the blocks are already mostly full with legitimate TXs it won't cost much to fill the remainder with solid spam.
how expensive is it to fill a block?
cheap like dirt when blocks are already full of legitimate TX
we need to push the block limit higher to make these spam attack more expensive?
cheap like dirt when blocks are already full of legitimate TX
we need to push the block limit higher to make these spam attack more expensive?
Maybe we should actually address the spam itself -- nodes and miners don't have to relay spam. We can raise the default threshold in the Core client. Or we could consider a "per-dust-output" fee as suggested here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/a-new-approach-to-the-block-size-debate-lets-address-the-spam-1171182.
All with the added bonus of reducing UXTO load and therefore increasing the efficiency of all nodes.
Related to this I believe
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/coinwalleteu-stress-test-cancelled-bitcoin-giveaway-1175321
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/coinwalleteu-stress-test-cancelled-bitcoin-giveaway-1175321
I don't think it is. At this time mempool is <2mb and unconfirmed transactions at < 2000.
Interesting fact is that there are 6 blocks found in under 5 minutes, which is uncommon i believe, so maybe that helped with faster processing of transactions
Interesting fact is that there are 6 blocks found in under 5 minutes, which is uncommon i believe, so maybe that helped with faster processing of transactions
Jump to: