Topic: mempool 70k+ and growing fast. (Read 1365 times)

And increasing the block size would have virtually no affect on spam attacks, if you doubled the block size it would just make it cheaper to send transactions thus making it cheaper to send spam.

Not necessarily because lets say the fee was cut in half with double the number of tx... if blocks are 90% full on average, the extra 10% is all you need to overflow...
so its a 1:11 ratio. You would need to have fees get 1100% cheaper before it would be the same cost.

This is why I call you a shill. No logical person could come up with such bull shit.

Bullshit? It's simple math you moron.

I'm not surprised -- you were the guy that a moment ago gave us this gem:

Quote from: Quantus on April 28, 2017, 09:30:27 PM

Its my personal belief the network runs at about 10% of capacity when its not under spam attacks.

https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=90days

You might want to ask yourself why no major alt coin seems to have
an ongoing "spam problem". Can't wait to see what your genius brain
comes up with.

Proof your a shill
https://i.imgur.com/ib2xnNn.png

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1004

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on April 28, 2017, 09:26:37 PM

And increasing the block size would have virtually no affect on spam attacks, if you doubled the block size it would just make it cheaper to send transactions thus making it cheaper to send spam.

Not necessarily because lets say the fee was cut in half with double the number of tx... if blocks are 90% full on average, the extra 10% is all you need to overflow...
so its a 1:11 ratio. You would need to have fees get 1100% cheaper before it would be the same cost.

This is why I call you a shill. No logical person could come up with such bull shit.

Bullshit? It's simple math you moron.

I'm not surprised -- you were the guy that a moment ago gave us this gem:

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on April 28, 2017, 09:26:37 PM

Its my personal belief the network runs at about 10% of capacity when its not under spam attacks.

https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=90days

You might want to ask yourself why no major alt coin seems to have
an ongoing "spam problem". Can't wait to see what your genius brain
comes up with.

Quantus

legendary

Activity: 883

Merit: 1005

And increasing the block size would have virtually no affect on spam attacks, if you doubled the block size it would just make it cheaper to send transactions thus making it cheaper to send spam.

Not necessarily because lets say the fee was cut in half with double the number of tx... if blocks are 90% full on average, the extra 10% is all you need to overflow...
so its a 1:11 ratio. You would need to have fees get 1100% cheaper before it would be the same cost.

This is why I call you a shill. No logical person could come up with such bull shit.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1004

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

And increasing the block size would have virtually no affect on spam attacks, if you doubled the block size it would just make it cheaper to send transactions thus making it cheaper to send spam.

Not necessarily because lets say the fee was cut in half with double the number of tx... if blocks are 90% full on average, the extra 10% is all you need to overflow...
so its a 1:11 ratio. You would need to have fees get 1100% cheaper before it would be the same cost.

anonymoustroll420

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 101

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on April 28, 2017, 07:25:20 PM

And increasing the block size would have virtually no affect on spam attacks, if you doubled the block size it would just make it cheaper to send transactions thus making it cheaper to send spam.

It would actually make it worse. They would be able to make much spammier transactions due to the quadratic hashing problem (which segwit fixes) which could cause chainsplits.

Quantus

legendary

Activity: 883

Merit: 1005

Quote from: Quantus on April 28, 2017, 07:36:19 PM

Its my personal belief the network runs at about 10% of capacity when its not under spam attacks.

10% of capacity? No man... Look at the average size of the blocks. Just because the mempool isn't overflowed doesn't mean the blocks are only 10% full.

Blocks are being filled with fake transactions they are not legitimate transactions they don't propagate across the network like other transactions. They are created at the time the blocks are created inside the mining facilities by the miners to facilitate an efficiency boost for miners. (google ASIC-boost)

And increasing the block size would have virtually no affect on spam attacks, if you doubled the block size it would just make it cheaper to send transactions thus making it cheaper to send spam.

And just like that it looks like the attack has stopped or maybe just taking a break, I wonder how long it will take for the backlog to be cleared.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1004

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: bettercrypto on April 28, 2017, 07:26:40 PM

Quote from: bettercrypto on April 28, 2017, 07:26:40 PM

Hypothetically What would give someone an incentive to spam the network like this?
Could it be an exchange looking to lower the price so they can buy back in?
Maybe these spam attacks are even sold as a service to large investors. Mining pools could easily accommodate such an request for a nominal fee of course.
"Pay me 'X' and I will slow the network, this will sow fear in the community and the price will drop"

This is part of the political agenda though we do not know who is spamming the network but this is for sure to make the community pressure the developer to either implement Segwit or Blocksize increase. I wonder if one of the two suggestion can halt this kind of attack if it was implemented.

Well larger blocks would not stop spam attacks or even make them cost much more.

Half correct.

They would not stop them for sure, but they would make them cost much more since there is so much more block space to fill. With mostly-full blocks now, there's only a tiny amount of space a spammer needs, and after that, they can use the smallest fee possible that would allow a tx to remain in a mempool.

Quantus

legendary

Activity: 883

Merit: 1005

Quote from: bettercrypto on April 28, 2017, 07:26:40 PM

Hypothetically What would give someone an incentive to spam the network like this?
Could it be an exchange looking to lower the price so they can buy back in?
Maybe these spam attacks are even sold as a service to large investors. Mining pools could easily accommodate such an request for a nominal fee of course.
"Pay me 'X' and I will slow the network, this will sow fear in the community and the price will drop"

This is part of the political agenda though we do not know who is spamming the network but this is for sure to make the community pressure the developer to either implement Segwit or Blocksize increase. I wonder if one of the two suggestion can halt this kind of attack if it was implemented.

Well larger blocks would not stop spam attacks or even make them cost much more. But with segwit theoretically companies like mcdonalds, Wall-Mart or even that little coffee shop off main street you like so much could setup a side chains so customers could fund accounts so you can buy coffee every morning with little to no fee and then any money you don't spend at the end of the month gets sent back to your main wallet address at the end of the month. To my understanding thats how it would work. My very limited understanding... The companies would be responsible for security and spam attacks on their side chains.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1004

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Hypothetically What would give someone an incentive to spam the network like this?
Could it be an exchange looking to lower the price so they can buy back in?
Maybe these spam attacks are even sold as a service to large investors. Mining pools could easily accommodate such an request for a nominal fee of course.
"Pay me 'X' and I will slow the network, this will sow fear in the community and the price will drop"

This is part of the political agenda though we do not know who is spamming the network but this is for sure to make the community pressure the developer to either implement Segwit or Blocksize increase. I wonder if one of the two suggestion can halt this kind of attack if it was implemented.

read Alex.BTC's post on why this attack is so easy to do in the absence of more capacity.

bettercrypto

sr. member

Activity: 1316

Merit: 268

★Bitvest.io★ Play Plinko or Invest!

Hypothetically What would give someone an incentive to spam the network like this?
Could it be an exchange looking to lower the price so they can buy back in?
Maybe these spam attacks are even sold as a service to large investors. Mining pools could easily accommodate such an request for a nominal fee of course.
"Pay me 'X' and I will slow the network, this will sow fear in the community and the price will drop"

This is part of the political agenda though we do not know who is spamming the network but this is for sure to make the community pressure the developer to either implement Segwit or Blocksize increase. I wonder if one of the two suggestion can halt this kind of attack if it was implemented.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1004

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political