New 0.00001 spam attack | Bitcointalksearch.org

goosoodude

hero member

Activity: 584

Merit: 500

Quote from: Meuh6879 on July 31, 2015, 08:45:28 AM

Post fees to emit 200 USD to bank or other post accounts = 5,5 USD (2,8% of fees)
Bitcoin network to emit 200 USD = 0,003 USD (0,00145 % of fees)

no problem here.

Im not sure what bank accounts you use. I usually pay zero fees for transactions.

Regardless of that... bitcoin was created to not need a bank. I think we shouldn't watch at the banks and try to "be not so bad as they at least". Bitcoin should be better. Useable for all, even developing countries where the average income is $1 per day.

amaclin

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1019

Quote from: Meuh6879 on July 31, 2015, 08:45:28 AM

no problem here.

1) no problem here today
2) the problem is not here

Meuh6879

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1012

Post fees to emit 200 USD to bank or other post accounts = 5,5 USD (2,8% of fees)
Bitcoin network to emit 200 USD = 0,003 USD (0,00145 % of fees)

no problem here.

goosoodude

hero member

Activity: 584

Merit: 500

Quote from: bryant.coleman on July 22, 2015, 10:45:43 PM

Quote from: OROBTC on July 22, 2015, 12:49:32 PM

Except for people who want micropayments (and, um, that's what these appear to be, LOTS of them), I still have not seen ANY convincing arguments against the idea of raising minimums:

1) minimum BTC sent to, say, BTC0.001

and/or

2) minimum transaction fee to, say, BTC0.0002

I would rather have a robust BTC Ecosystem that gets my payments through in good time than worry about sending amounts of less than US$0.20.............

A payment of BTC0.001 comes in the category of micropayments, right? Anyway who want to pay someone with BTC0.0001 or lesser amounts, other than the spammers? In my opinion, BTC0.001 should be the absolute minimum. And the minimum transaction fee should be BTC0.0001. This will decrease the spamming quite a lot.

Who are you to say that bitcoins only should be a currency for high values? Do we need a second Western Union where sending money only makes sense when you send enough because the fees are high? It should be possible to use bitcoins as a normal currency. And you don't achieve that by blocking people from buying small things too.

Meuh6879

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1012

good point and view ... it rises ... Undecided

goosoodude

hero member

Activity: 584

Merit: 500

Quote from: OROBTC on July 22, 2015, 12:49:32 PM

...

Except for people who want micropayments (and, um, that's what these appear to be, LOTS of them), I still have not seen ANY convincing arguments against the idea of raising minimums:

1) minimum BTC sent to, say, BTC0.001

and/or

2) minimum transaction fee to, say, BTC0.0002

I would rather have a robust BTC Ecosystem that gets my payments through in good time than worry about sending amounts of less than US$0.20.............

You really got no argument? Then how about that? Raising fees will simply mean spammers raise their fee too. Done. If the spammers are miner corporations then the cost would not be a big problem.

And no, it would be bad for adoption when we would make using bitcoin more expensive. Adoption is the only way for bitcoin to survive. Miners shouldn't shoot themselves in the knee.

Soros Shorts

donator

Activity: 1617

Merit: 1012

Quote from: Kprawn on July 23, 2015, 01:07:53 AM

We are doing exactly what these people wants us to do, for them to profit more from this attack. Angry

Who exactly are "these people"? You seem to insinuate that they are miners. Do you have any proof?

Kprawn

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1074

Why do we need to adjust the minimum fee's, to make it easier for miners to make more money? We will only create a scenario where they or anyone else with greed as a motive, will do this to force people to

pay higher fee's. Let the engineers fix this, and close the loophole for people who wants to do this. Take away the ability to profit from spamming at the protocol level, and these people would not benefit from that.

We are doing exactly what these people wants us to do, for them to profit more from this attack. Angry

AT101ET

legendary

Activity: 3192

Merit: 1348

They happen relatively often as marketing campaigns for various companies. I never take any notice of them, but if a few thousand companies were to do that to me I wouldn't say no.
It's probably best to ignore any transaction when it's that low as it's not really worthwhile or likely that it came from any other source.

OROBTC

legendary

Activity: 2940

Merit: 1865

...

pooya87

My suggested minimums (BTC0.001 and BTC0.0002) were really just a starting point for discussion. I do understand that there might have to be significant changes to the programming. Which might not be worth it.

I am in NO position to say whether my idea is any good or not. It's just an idea.

bryant.coleman

Same comment, the numbers I put out there "seem reasonable".

odolvlobo

How do I count the symmetries? Ah, but back to business, I have been doing what you just suggested since the spam attacks started, and my three of four transactions went through fine (sending & receiving). But, I read reports of people NOT getting their BTC for a long time even though the transaction fees were not zero or close.

pooya87

legendary

Activity: 3472

Merit: 10611

Quote from: OROBTC on July 22, 2015, 12:49:32 PM

Except for people who want micropayments (and, um, that's what these appear to be, LOTS of them), I still have not seen ANY convincing arguments against the idea of raising minimums:
1) minimum BTC sent to, say, BTC0.001
and/or
2) minimum transaction fee to, say, BTC0.0002
I would rather have a robust BTC Ecosystem that gets my payments through in good time than worry about sending amounts of less than US$0.20.............

you are asking for a change in the system so you should provide valid argument and convince others to accept your proposal . anybody else is ok with the current fees and how things are working, especially now that the test / spam attack is over things are normal again.

besides nobody is forced to use the standard fee, if you prefer higher chance of getting confirmation you can increase the fees of your own transactions.

bryant.coleman

legendary

Activity: 3766

Merit: 1217

Quote from: OROBTC on July 22, 2015, 12:49:32 PM

Except for people who want micropayments (and, um, that's what these appear to be, LOTS of them), I still have not seen ANY convincing arguments against the idea of raising minimums:

1) minimum BTC sent to, say, BTC0.001

and/or

2) minimum transaction fee to, say, BTC0.0002

I would rather have a robust BTC Ecosystem that gets my payments through in good time than worry about sending amounts of less than US$0.20.............

A payment of BTC0.001 comes in the category of micropayments, right? Anyway who want to pay someone with BTC0.0001 or lesser amounts, other than the spammers? In my opinion, BTC0.001 should be the absolute minimum. And the minimum transaction fee should be BTC0.0001. This will decrease the spamming quite a lot.

odolvlobo

legendary

Activity: 4466

Merit: 3391

Quote from: OROBTC on July 22, 2015, 12:49:32 PM

Except for people who want micropayments (and, um, that's what these appear to be, LOTS of them), I still have not seen ANY convincing arguments against the idea of raising minimums:
1) minimum BTC sent to, say, BTC0.001
and/or
2) minimum transaction fee to, say, BTC0.0002
I would rather have a robust BTC Ecosystem that gets my payments through in good time than worry about sending amounts of less than US$0.20.............

The argument against is that it is unnecessary. If you you want your transaction confirmed promptly, you only have to raise the amount that you pay.

newb4now

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 500

Quote from: OROBTC on July 22, 2015, 12:49:32 PM

...

Except for people who want micropayments (and, um, that's what these appear to be, LOTS of them), I still have not seen ANY convincing arguments against the idea of raising minimums:

1) minimum BTC sent to, say, BTC0.001

and/or

2) minimum transaction fee to, say, BTC0.0002

I would rather have a robust BTC Ecosystem that gets my payments through in good time than worry about sending amounts of less than US$0.20.............

micropayments is the only legit reason. Unfortunately there are many good use cases for micropayments that raising the minimum fee too much could significantly harm

Pathi

sr. member

Activity: 244

Merit: 250

Cant that many people out there with this much bitcoin. Maybe this will help with finding out who is doing this crap.

OOOPs I dint see that was the receiving addie.

dukeneptun

legendary

Activity: 1064

Merit: 1000

They're spamming bitfinex's cold wallet?* Meh. They don't need dust, but me! Grin

*source: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/36v29t/bitfinex_hack2252015_1459_bitcoins_lost/

baristor

sr. member

Activity: 637

Merit: 262

Quote from: cellard on July 22, 2015, 12:45:00 PM

Quote from: amaclin on July 22, 2015, 09:28:24 AM

starts from
https://tradeblock.com/blockchain/tx/7c83fe5ba301e655973e9de8eb9fb5e20ef3a6dd9b46c503679c858399eda50f

Those happen all the time. Look at this one:

https://blockchain.info/address/39coweGgC8CPZ6hYL1BBEfc1zqbSfHsprW

I saw it like a week ago and look at the insane balance lol.

That balance :O

If only we all had that much in our wallets,,,, ! GJZ!

iqbal15st

full member

Activity: 193

Merit: 100

Quote from: unamis76 on July 22, 2015, 01:54:29 PM

Quote from: cellard on July 22, 2015, 12:45:00 PM

Quote from: amaclin on July 22, 2015, 09:28:24 AM

starts from
https://tradeblock.com/blockchain/tx/7c83fe5ba301e655973e9de8eb9fb5e20ef3a6dd9b46c503679c858399eda50f

Those happen all the time. Look at this one:

https://blockchain.info/address/39coweGgC8CPZ6hYL1BBEfc1zqbSfHsprW

I saw it like a week ago and look at the insane balance lol.

Is this a known address from somewhere? It obviously doesn't have that balance just because of dust Cheesy

I too have experienced this sort of thing, but I am grateful to be able to make as a replacement because the transaction fee

unamis76

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1012

Quote from: cellard on July 22, 2015, 12:45:00 PM

Quote from: amaclin on July 22, 2015, 09:28:24 AM

starts from
https://tradeblock.com/blockchain/tx/7c83fe5ba301e655973e9de8eb9fb5e20ef3a6dd9b46c503679c858399eda50f

Those happen all the time. Look at this one:

https://blockchain.info/address/39coweGgC8CPZ6hYL1BBEfc1zqbSfHsprW

I saw it like a week ago and look at the insane balance lol.

Is this a known address from somewhere? It obviously doesn't have that balance just because of dust Cheesy

BTCBinary

hero member

Activity: 504

Merit: 500

This is the real proof and why I keep believing that we really need a Block size increase!

Topic: New 0.00001 spam attack (Read 1205 times)