Well I don't see how it could determine who the attacker is without some reference point, such as address, ip, node, or etc.
You can't spot the spam transactions yourself? Get … eyes. No, you don't need to know who it is to block the transactions.
Topic: Next level Bitcoin stress test -- June 29-30 13:00 GMT 2015 - page 8. (Read 16077 times)
Mempool at 16.5 Mb. Not bad but didn't they aim for 120 Mb?
It was explained in the thread regarding last week's test why the test net was not used - doing so would not properly measure economic incentives of both miners and other users in regards to TX fees.
BS. If the attacker had a tenth of a clue, she could easily simulate all transactions over a period, and add his spam to that.Quote
Quote
Do you read and store all your email spam as well, forwarding copies to all your friends?
You are comparing apples to oranges. Email I receive to my private email, is by definition private and will not (with very few exceptions) be shared with anyone. Quote
A better analogy would be would I forward emails sent to my mail server intended for my customers when the sender is paying for them to be forwarded? The answer would obviously be yes.
So you take money for spammers to spam your customers. Great. I am sure you get a lot of them. Do your customers know?Quote
Eligius is treating certain inputs differently then other inputs. Plain and simple. They are saying that Bitcoin owned by one entity is not allowed to have their transactions confirmed by their found blocks.
Nope. They didn't say that. Even when you download and install a fresh Bitcoin Core form bitcoin.org or compile one from git, there are anti-DoS measures preventing most spammy transactions from getting forwarded and mined, and it prioritize non-spammy transactions over spam. This malicious attacker has tweaked his spam to get around the default anti DoS measures. Nobody can prevent miners to tweak the anti spam code in their server to ignore the new spam transactions or change the priorities. In fact, they don't need to mine any transactions at all, or they can choose to mine all transactions. Most miners are bitcoin friendly however. They keep keep the anti-DoS measures, include all sensible transactions waiting to get mined in their blocks and only mine spam if it doesn't get in the way. All miners prioritize sane transactions when blocks are full.Quote
This is not the first time that eligius (via Luke-jr) has done something similar to harm Bitcoin. Gambling sites were previously blacklisted by default by mining software when this was pretty clearly not a wanted "feature" of such software. In other words the software did things that its users did not want. This is how a lot of people describe malware.
I am a user. I want this. I want bitcoin to be successfull, not spammed to death. 
How much longer is this supposed to go on?
Well I don't see how it could determine who the attacker is without some reference point, such as address, ip, node, or etc.
You can't spot the spam transactions yourself? Get … eyes. No, you don't need to know who it is to block the transactions.
So... was that it? Back to 2 tx/s.
Now what I really want to know is why on earth did they not send transactions at a pace of 32/s as planned.
Now what I really want to know is why on earth did they not send transactions at a pace of 32/s as planned.
Well I don't see how it could determine who the attacker is without some reference point, such as address, ip, node, or etc.
You can't spot the spam transactions yourself? Get … eyes. No, you don't need to know who it is to block the transactions. The attack is not meant to harm the network. This test is designed to measure the effect of what will happen when transaction volume starts to pick up naturally.
Yes it is. If the malicious spammer wanted to test something, we have a testnet for that. This is exactly what the testnet is ment for.Eligius filtering out the test's transactions is doing nothing but harm to Bitcoin and is a good reason why no one should mine on eligius. Filtering out transactions that belong to a certain person harms bitcoin's fungibility and it is things like their actions that will lead to Bitcoin's failure.
Do you read and store all your email spam as well, forwarding copies to all your friends?A better analogy would be would I forward emails sent to my mail server intended for my customers when the sender is paying for them to be forwarded? The answer would obviously be yes.
Eligius is treating certain inputs differently then other inputs. Plain and simple. They are saying that Bitcoin owned by one entity is not allowed to have their transactions confirmed by their found blocks.
This is not the first time that eligius (via Luke-jr) has done something similar to harm Bitcoin. Gambling sites were previously blacklisted by default by mining software when this was pretty clearly not a wanted "feature" of such software. In other words the software did things that its users did not want. This is how a lot of people describe malware.
I did a transaction with a my usual transaction fee settings (slightly larger than standard fee) half an hour ago. The transaction was sent by my Electrum client via my Electrum server. Blockchain Info showed that the transaction confirmed in 6 minutes (next block).
However, at this network load my Electrum server was lagging and I didn't see the confirmation for some time. The server runs on a slow processor and the Electrum Server is using about 7 times as much CPU time as the bitcoin core node on the same machine. Another problem was that the Electrum client (on a different machine) still hadn't picked up the confirmation for several minutes after the Electrum server was done processing the block containing the confirmation. I restarted the client and this time it worked.
Performance (so far) of Bitcoin Core has been exemplary. Performance of Electrum, less so.
However, at this network load my Electrum server was lagging and I didn't see the confirmation for some time. The server runs on a slow processor and the Electrum Server is using about 7 times as much CPU time as the bitcoin core node on the same machine. Another problem was that the Electrum client (on a different machine) still hadn't picked up the confirmation for several minutes after the Electrum server was done processing the block containing the confirmation. I restarted the client and this time it worked.
Performance (so far) of Bitcoin Core has been exemplary. Performance of Electrum, less so.
u should let the electrum team know about your experience, if they aren't hacking through it themselves.
looks like they might be: https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum-server
update 7 hrs ago with some kind of mempool update
I think this post pretty much proves your ignorance of the situation and how miners function and what their purpose is.
I'll just point out one thing and leave the rest alone.... Keep in mind that with Eligius filtering the spam transactions miners are not getting the fees those spam transactions carry. So, this is not a for profit decision. It's a decision to help bitcoin in general.
Miners have always determined what transactions make it into blocks. This is nothing new and nothing that will change.
Oh so you didn't actually address what I was saying, but instead made statements of my ignorance.
Which btw, I admitted when I stated I was a noob, so thank you for your confirmation without explanation and correction of my understanding.
My understanding is miners "choose" transaction based on fee amount and are placed into priority, not what you are saying which is:
"Miners have always determined what transactions make it into blocks. This is nothing new and nothing that will change."
But you aren't doing that. You have blacklisted the addresses of the "attacker", "Spammer", "tester" whatever people want to call them.
Are you saying that all miners are blacklisting addresses? That's news to me and I'm sure other bitcoiners as well.
Incorrect. The specific patch to Eligius which blocks this attack does not include any blacklist or addresses.
Well I don't see how it could determine who the attacker is without some reference point, such as address, ip, node, or etc.
If you are just rejecting all transactions below a certain miner fee and not including in a block, then I have no problem, in theory.
I'm only against outright blacklisting/whitelisting of addresses/coins/etc that will ultimately lead to Bitcoin/bitcoin's destruction.
I did a transaction with a my usual transaction fee settings (slightly larger than standard fee) half an hour ago. The transaction was sent by my Electrum client via my Electrum server. Blockchain Info showed that the transaction confirmed in 6 minutes (next block).
However, at this network load my Electrum server was lagging and I didn't see the confirmation for some time. The server runs on a slow processor and the Electrum Server is using about 7 times as much CPU time as the bitcoin core node on the same machine. Another problem was that the Electrum client (on a different machine) still hadn't picked up the confirmation for several minutes after the Electrum server was done processing the block containing the confirmation. I restarted the client and this time it worked.
Performance (so far) of Bitcoin Core has been exemplary. Performance of Electrum, less so.
However, at this network load my Electrum server was lagging and I didn't see the confirmation for some time. The server runs on a slow processor and the Electrum Server is using about 7 times as much CPU time as the bitcoin core node on the same machine. Another problem was that the Electrum client (on a different machine) still hadn't picked up the confirmation for several minutes after the Electrum server was done processing the block containing the confirmation. I restarted the client and this time it worked.
Performance (so far) of Bitcoin Core has been exemplary. Performance of Electrum, less so.
I think this post pretty much proves your ignorance of the situation and how miners function and what their purpose is.
I'll just point out one thing and leave the rest alone.... Keep in mind that with Eligius filtering the spam transactions miners are not getting the fees those spam transactions carry. So, this is not a for profit decision. It's a decision to help bitcoin in general.
Miners have always determined what transactions make it into blocks. This is nothing new and nothing that will change.
Oh so you didn't actually address what I was saying, but instead made statements of my ignorance.
Which btw, I admitted when I stated I was a noob, so thank you for your confirmation without explanation and correction of my understanding.
My understanding is miners "choose" transaction based on fee amount and are placed into priority, not what you are saying which is:
"Miners have always determined what transactions make it into blocks. This is nothing new and nothing that will change."
But you aren't doing that. You have blacklisted the addresses of the "attacker", "Spammer", "tester" whatever people want to call them.
Are you saying that all miners are blacklisting addresses? That's news to me and I'm sure other bitcoiners as well.
Incorrect. The specific patch to Eligius which blocks this attack does not include any blacklist or addresses.
The attack is not meant to harm the network. This test is designed to measure the effect of what will happen when transaction volume starts to pick up naturally.
Yes it is. If the malicious spammer wanted to test something, we have a testnet for that. This is exactly what the testnet is ment for.Eligius filtering out the test's transactions is doing nothing but harm to Bitcoin and is a good reason why no one should mine on eligius. Filtering out transactions that belong to a certain person harms bitcoin's fungibility and it is things like their actions that will lead to Bitcoin's failure.
Do you read and store all your email spam as well, forwarding copies to all your friends? I think this post pretty much proves your ignorance of the situation and how miners function and what their purpose is.
I'll just point out one thing and leave the rest alone.... Keep in mind that with Eligius filtering the spam transactions miners are not getting the fees those spam transactions carry. So, this is not a for profit decision. It's a decision to help bitcoin in general.
Miners have always determined what transactions make it into blocks. This is nothing new and nothing that will change.
Oh so you didn't actually address what I was saying, but instead made statements of my ignorance.
Which btw, I admitted when I stated I was a noob, so thank you for your confirmation without explanation and correction of my understanding.
My understanding is miners "choose" transaction based on fee amount and are placed into priority, not what you are saying which is:
"Miners have always determined what transactions make it into blocks. This is nothing new and nothing that will change."
But you aren't doing that. You have blacklisted the addresses of the "attacker", "Spammer", "tester" whatever people want to call them.
Are you saying that all miners are blacklisting addresses? That's news to me and I'm sure other bitcoiners as well.
What needless extra crap? I didn't mention any needless extra crap.
You said Quote
using internal transactions at exchanges where both have a wallet
but if I know 10 different people who use 10 different exchanges, I'm clearly not going to sign up to all of them because that's somehow "smarter".Quote
And the official release date for Lightning is when?
…
And the official release date for sidechains is when?
Probably long before the need for larger blocks arise. As this spam attack shows, there is plenty room for spam in the blocks already. No need to encourage more of it.…
And the official release date for sidechains is when?
Quote
Quote
You don't get it, do you? Increasing fees means increasing miner rewards at no cost to the miners. Larger blocks incurs a cost, which is why many miners don't fill the blocks even today.
I get it just fine, thanks. But I'm pretty sure there will be some miners who would like to mine some larger blocks and collect the extra fees from all the additional transactions they'll be processing. Hence several of the large pools expressing an interest in 8MB blocks. I suppose you think they don't get it either?Quote
Quote
There is no reason to keep the reward at 25 BTC. The cost of that to everyone who want the security and privacy of running a full node is too high.
So you honestly expect miners to take a hit every single time the reward halves? I thought I was the one who didn't understand their costs? One way or another, fees need to go up.
I just registered to tell you that my bitstamp withdrawal has been stuck for 8 hours because of these "stress tests"
I have now missed making my mortgage payment because of this. Thanks... I'm already completely broke and struggling to feed my family. Now I have more bank charges and lost value from today's peak.
Way to hit the small guys.
My last 4 BTC.
I have now missed making my mortgage payment because of this. Thanks... I'm already completely broke and struggling to feed my family. Now I have more bank charges and lost value from today's peak.
Way to hit the small guys.
My last 4 BTC.
Ah, the drama. Looks like this malicious spam attack has no effect on other transactions than spam as well. From #bitcoin on Freenode:
The attack is not meant to harm the network. This test is designed to measure the effect of what will happen when transaction volume starts to pick up naturally. Quote
19:30 <@wizkid057> xx1d: I've been filtering the attack on Eligius since the first one (as you'll notice Eligius does not mine the attacker's spam). I've also been monitoring Eligius's memory pool size. As other pools mine spam filled blocks they also are mining the majority of the legit txns that Eligius is trying to mine, dropping Eligius's memory pool down to just tens of KB... meaning the attack is
19:30 <@wizkid057> effectively ineffective even without Eligius explicitly filtering (the filtering just gives me a good metric to monitor)
Just as the previous malicious spam attack. An effective attack is going to cost a lot more, and require a large amount of capital in form of older larger inputs and larger outputs which are alowed to age before they are spent again. The spammer is wasting his coins again, proving that bitcoin works well. Smaller blocks only means the spammer wastes his coins more slowly.19:30 <@wizkid057> effectively ineffective even without Eligius explicitly filtering (the filtering just gives me a good metric to monitor)
Eligius filtering out the test's transactions is doing nothing but harm to Bitcoin and is a good reason why no one should mine on eligius. Filtering out transactions that belong to a certain person harms bitcoin's fungibility and it is things like their actions that will lead to Bitcoin's failure.
I was sent 0.18 BTC & 0.095 BTC today a few hours ago for my Da Dice sig & avatar campaigns that I am enrolled in.
Blockchain.info is showing both transactions as received but no confirmations.
My worry though is that neither transaction is showing up on my BTC core client, not even as unconfirmed transactions, just nothing, not received.
What's going on? I've never had anything like this in over 2 years.
Is this related to the stress test?
Blockchain.info is showing both transactions as received but no confirmations.
My worry though is that neither transaction is showing up on my BTC core client, not even as unconfirmed transactions, just nothing, not received.
What's going on? I've never had anything like this in over 2 years.
Is this related to the stress test?
It's probably the result of the stress test that flooded the network with minuscule spam transactions. There are over 8000 unconfirmed transactions in a queue waiting to get in a block, and your payment is probably one of those waiting in line. Each block can only hold 1 MB and some miners refuse to fill blocks up fully so confirmed payments are being delayed until the miners can get through the backlog of unconfirmed transactions.
https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions
These are the 2 transactions (not that anybody cares lol)
https://blockchain.info/tx/507786c7c0533ff032426df74c937d23101e0323f97b06d32be0dafcf8974c68
https://blockchain.info/tx/1c66569e8e0d2e75929e576fb25b5dc5761f16dc597abd9033a5ba57e41dd5ef
Edit - Now blockchain.info is down , it's had enough
Fee is too low, especially during a stress test, it will confirm eventually tho but you could potentially wait 1-2 days.
I was sent 0.18 BTC & 0.095 BTC today a few hours ago for my Da Dice sig & avatar campaigns that I am enrolled in.
Blockchain.info is showing both transactions as received but no confirmations.
My worry though is that neither transaction is showing up on my BTC core client, not even as unconfirmed transactions, just nothing, not received.
What's going on? I've never had anything like this in over 2 years.
Is this related to the stress test?
Blockchain.info is showing both transactions as received but no confirmations.
My worry though is that neither transaction is showing up on my BTC core client, not even as unconfirmed transactions, just nothing, not received.
What's going on? I've never had anything like this in over 2 years.
Is this related to the stress test?
It's probably the result of the stress test that flooded the network with minuscule spam transactions. There are over 8000 unconfirmed transactions in a queue waiting to get in a block, and your payment is probably one of those waiting in line. Each block can only hold 1 MB and some miners refuse to fill blocks up fully so confirmed payments are being delayed until the miners can get through the backlog of unconfirmed transactions.
https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions
These are the 2 transactions (not that anybody cares lol)
https://blockchain.info/tx/507786c7c0533ff032426df74c937d23101e0323f97b06d32be0dafcf8974c68
https://blockchain.info/tx/1c66569e8e0d2e75929e576fb25b5dc5761f16dc597abd9033a5ba57e41dd5ef
Edit - Now blockchain.info is down , it's had enough
Jump to: