Spam attack solution? | Bitcointalksearch.org

Heruur

full member

Activity: 140

Merit: 100

Quote from: Lauda on May 09, 2017, 09:22:12 PM

Quote from: Heruur on May 06, 2017, 08:53:22 AM

Effectively 140K Tx is the total number of unconfirmed transaction. If an attacker wants to disrupt the network by adding 20% of unconfirmed transaction, he must ensure that his transactions are prioritized by the miners.

No, your premise that attacker wants 'x' at all times is false. It all depends on what they are trying to accomplish. Do they want to spike the mempool to create artificial delays ("panic") whilst actually having only a small effect? Do they really want to cause more delays? They don't really need to spend more fees than everyone, just those who are generally low-paying.

Exactly as you said all depends on what they are trying to accomplish. Of course they don't need to spend more fees to create unconfirmed transaction but may be try to increase the number of transactions in order to explode the transaction fees. If I send transactions whose fees are higher than the average transaction fees (20sat / byte) and my volume represents 20% of the daily transactions then I make sure to saturate the network with my transactions (20% more unconfirmed transactions) and influence the price of transaction fees.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: ImHash on May 06, 2017, 08:28:40 AM

Quote from: Lauda on May 06, 2017, 08:13:32 AM

Bullshit. Do I have to explain this to you 100 times before you understand what spam is? The definition of spam transactions is entirely dislocated from your inclusion of a fee (or lack thereof).

Don't you snap at me you Psychotic Bitch Cheesy

I said that we are not done, and here I am.

Quote from: ImHash on May 06, 2017, 08:28:40 AM

How could you not read the rest of my post?
It's all miners fault, they want to push big blocks to have the ability to double/ triple their fee revenue, we should revolt then since they're tyrants.

The rest of the post does not matter for the statement which I am quoting. Your whole premise is wrong, and the remainder builds upon it. There are transactions which are spam. Whilst it may be *somewhat hard* to specify which TXs are spam or not to the outside observer (except for the obvious cases), it certainly exists.

Quote from: ImHash on May 06, 2017, 08:28:40 AM

I don't want to say it straight forward that we need SW to increase block size and reduce TX sizes at the same time because then people think I'm a shill which I'm not, I'm with the truth and will remain with the good side, the moment I see SW is malicious/ hostile to the code/ network I will sell them out like in a giffy Cheesy

SW -> small block size increase. This seems like a viable plan to me. Keep in mind that any kind of HF will run into some resistance. There are people who are completely against any block size increase via HF (SW or not SW).

Quote from: Heruur on May 06, 2017, 08:53:22 AM

Effectively 140K Tx is the total number of unconfirmed transaction. If an attacker wants to disrupt the network by adding 20% of unconfirmed transaction, he must ensure that his transactions are prioritized by the miners.

No, your premise that attacker wants 'x' at all times is false. It all depends on what they are trying to accomplish. Do they want to spike the mempool to create artificial delays ("panic") whilst actually having only a small effect? Do they really want to cause more delays? They don't really need to spend more fees than everyone, just those who are generally low-paying.

Heruur

full member

Activity: 140

Merit: 100

Quote from: BitcoinHodler on May 06, 2017, 08:31:18 AM

Quote from: Heruur on May 06, 2017, 08:19:47 AM

Quote from: BitcoinHodler on May 06, 2017, 07:50:26 AM

Quote from: Heruur on May 06, 2017, 07:40:42 AM

You have just to analysed stats of bitcoin on 05/05/2017 : http://statoshi.info/dashboard/db/memory-pool

If it was a spam attack the estimated cost is : 20000 Tx (number of min spam transaction estimated) * 93099 sat (Avg fees per Tx) = 18.61980000 BTC (28856 $)

you should explain how from these numbers you concluded there isn't any spam attack because it is not clear.

also you are making a couple of mistakes.
1. you are rounding up the numbers. transactions have a wide range of fees. from 0 sat/byte to 700 sat/byte. and also they have a wide range of sizes from small 190 byte to big ass tens of kilobyte. and if anything you should multiply fee/byte with total size in byte not number of tx * average fee.
2. you could have used blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions. the total fee of transactions in memory pool is currently at 258.915BTC and size is 139 MB

The spammer is not alone to do Tx on Bitcoin network. The calcul is very simple for a child : Number of Tx * Avg fees/Tx

Avg fees/Tx = Avg fees/Kbytes * Avg Kbytes/Tx

that is the whole point, that this calculation is not what a child can do.
if it were that easy you would have came up with a number which was closer to 258BTC than this. you are way off the mark here.

you have another wrong assumption and that is assuming out of 70K-136K tx on 2017-5-5 only 20K were spam

The amount of 20K Tx is just an example. What can we do other than hypotheses?

Effectively 140K Tx is the total number of unconfirmed transaction. If an attacker wants to disrupt the network by adding 20% of unconfirmed transaction, he must ensure that his transactions are prioritized by the miners.

BitcoinHodler

hero member

Activity: 1456

Merit: 578

HODLing is an art, not just a word...

Quote from: Heruur on May 06, 2017, 08:19:47 AM

Quote from: BitcoinHodler on May 06, 2017, 07:50:26 AM

Quote from: Heruur on May 06, 2017, 07:40:42 AM

You have just to analysed stats of bitcoin on 05/05/2017 : http://statoshi.info/dashboard/db/memory-pool

If it was a spam attack the estimated cost is : 20000 Tx (number of min spam transaction estimated) * 93099 sat (Avg fees per Tx) = 18.61980000 BTC (28856 $)

you should explain how from these numbers you concluded there isn't any spam attack because it is not clear.

also you are making a couple of mistakes.
1. you are rounding up the numbers. transactions have a wide range of fees. from 0 sat/byte to 700 sat/byte. and also they have a wide range of sizes from small 190 byte to big ass tens of kilobyte. and if anything you should multiply fee/byte with total size in byte not number of tx * average fee.
2. you could have used blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions. the total fee of transactions in memory pool is currently at 258.915BTC and size is 139 MB

The spammer is not alone to do Tx on Bitcoin network. The calcul is very simple for a child : Number of Tx * Avg fees/Tx

Avg fees/Tx = Avg fees/Kbytes * Avg Kbytes/Tx

that is the whole point, that this calculation is not what a child can do.
if it were that easy you would have came up with a number which was closer to 258BTC than this. you are way off the mark here.

you have another wrong assumption and that is assuming out of 70K-136K tx on 2017-5-5 only 20K were spam

edit:
here are 2 examples so that you can get a better feeling about that range i was talking about:
https://blockchain.info/tx/f8a9bb7e6dad27ef0ff3aa50ba05dbf0f3c7f2d5030821228dd8e314f66b2e4b
https://blockchain.info/tx/889c57f19d26f5094299be7af7da508bc9e6904d281586f8e214f9fda2baef09

ImHash

hero member

Activity: 924

Merit: 506

Quote from: Lauda on May 06, 2017, 08:13:32 AM

Bullshit. Do I have to explain this to you 100 times before you understand what spam is? The definition of spam transactions is entirely dislocated from your inclusion of a fee (or lack thereof).

Don't you snap at me you Psychotic Bitch Cheesy

How could you not read the rest of my post?
It's all miners fault, they want to push big blocks to have the ability to double/ triple their fee revenue, we should revolt then since they're tyrants.

I don't want to say it straight forward that we need SW to increase block size and reduce TX sizes at the same time because then people think I'm a shill which I'm not, I'm with the truth and will remain with the good side, the moment I see SW is malicious/ hostile to the code/ network I will sell them out like in a giffy Cheesy

Heruur

full member

Activity: 140

Merit: 100

Quote from: BitcoinHodler on May 06, 2017, 07:50:26 AM

Quote from: Heruur on May 06, 2017, 07:40:42 AM

You have just to analysed stats of bitcoin on 05/05/2017 : http://statoshi.info/dashboard/db/memory-pool

If it was a spam attack the estimated cost is : 20000 Tx (number of min spam transaction estimated) * 93099 sat (Avg fees per Tx) = 18.61980000 BTC (28856 $)

you should explain how from these numbers you concluded there isn't any spam attack because it is not clear.

also you are making a couple of mistakes.
1. you are rounding up the numbers. transactions have a wide range of fees. from 0 sat/byte to 700 sat/byte. and also they have a wide range of sizes from small 190 byte to big ass tens of kilobyte. and if anything you should multiply fee/byte with total size in byte not number of tx * average fee.
2. you could have used blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions. the total fee of transactions in memory pool is currently at 258.915BTC and size is 139 MB

The spammer is not alone to do Tx on Bitcoin network. The calcul is very simple for a child : Number of Tx * Avg fees/Tx

Avg fees/Tx = Avg fees/Kbytes * Avg Kbytes/Tx

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: Heruur on May 06, 2017, 08:10:06 AM

The purpose of the spammer is not to overload the mempool but to prioritize its own transactions in order to cause a lot of unconfirmed transactions... Just imagine the impact of this kind of attack... (no more confirmation on shapeshift.io and other exchanges...)

How would you know the purpose of the spammer? Roll Eyes

You're just making baseless assumptions, that's all. I've seen spam that was in the lower fee-tiers and also spam which was in the high-fee tiers. Additionally, even if we were to follow your baseless assumptions, there is no reason for him/her not to go with lean transactions.

Quote from: naughty1 on May 06, 2017, 08:01:59 AM

Although it is an irreversible existence of bitcoin at the present time. However, in part, it provides a good market. It is absolutely beneficial at the present time. As bitcoins began to increase, people were prepared to sell a lot of bitcoin, however, when the transaction was not confirmed, it still crashes, a number too large, which makes the market stable. And bitcoin is affected by any. So, in part, it's still beneficial.

Yet another example of a classic and completely stupid spam post.

Quote from: ImHash on May 06, 2017, 08:11:50 AM

As long as a transaction is paying a fee it is up to miners if they want to include it or not and you can't call them spam because they are paying fees.

Bullshit. Do I have to explain this to you 100 times before you understand what spam is? The definition of spam transactions is entirely dislocated from your inclusion of a fee (or lack thereof).

ImHash

hero member

Activity: 924

Merit: 506

As long as a transaction is paying a fee it is up to miners if they want to include it or not and you can't call them spam because they are paying fees.
What we can do is to identify those miners keep busy with mining their own spam and as well taking the fees, if majority rejects their blocks causing orphans or just rejected then who can help them?
Majority right now are miners running on Core.
Should the guilty party be among them others will reject their blocks still?
All the miners are profiting from this as it increases the fees, so why would miners bother?
If we had a different mechanism of TX delivery, if it was random, if miners couldn't include transactions which were broadcast one second before the block was submitted, meaning transactions were in mempool for some time and anyone of miners could've picked them up, meaning malicious miners couldn't submit 1800 TX 1 or 2 seconds before they find a block which indicates they are not actually spending any money but only causing the blocks not have any real user TX in them and causing delays and increasing the fees.

Heruur

full member

Activity: 140

Merit: 100

Quote from: Lauda on May 06, 2017, 07:49:36 AM

Quote from: Heruur on May 06, 2017, 07:40:42 AM

If it was a spam attack the estimated cost is : 20000 Tx (number of min spam transaction estimated) * 93099 sat (Avg fees per Tx) = 18.61980000 BTC (28856 $)

Your calculation is a overestimation. Average transactions fees are a bad measurement. The spammer can create lean transaction which are in <300 bytes per TX. Assuming a fee-rate of 220sat/bytes (I don't see why they'd use one that is this high anywhere), it comes down to =< 66 000 per TX. Also, $30k is trivial money for big players.

The purpose of the spammer is not to overload the mempool but to prioritize its own transactions in order to cause a lot of unconfirmed transactions... Just imagine the impact of this kind of attack... (no more confirmation on shapeshift.io and other exchanges...)

naughty1

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 250

Quote from: OmegaStarScream on May 06, 2017, 03:53:18 AM

I believe that the unconfirmed transaction number reached all time high as I never seen it like this before. (100,000+)
Is it theoretically possible to create a solution for the current spam attacks that we are facing? (assuming that we already have SegWit, bigger blocks, etc.). I believe that people could always do this spam attacks, even though It costs money, someone who have something against bitcoin will definitely pay for the "cause".

Although it is an irreversible existence of bitcoin at the present time. However, in part, it provides a good market. It is absolutely beneficial at the present time. As bitcoins began to increase, people were prepared to sell a lot of bitcoin, however, when the transaction was not confirmed, it still crashes, a number too large, which makes the market stable. And bitcoin is affected by any. So, in part, it's still beneficial.

BitcoinHodler

hero member

Activity: 1456

Merit: 578

HODLing is an art, not just a word...

Quote from: Heruur on May 06, 2017, 07:40:42 AM

You have just to analysed stats of bitcoin on 05/05/2017 : http://statoshi.info/dashboard/db/memory-pool

If it was a spam attack the estimated cost is : 20000 Tx (number of min spam transaction estimated) * 93099 sat (Avg fees per Tx) = 18.61980000 BTC (28856 $)

you should explain how from these numbers you concluded there isn't any spam attack because it is not clear.

also you are making a couple of mistakes.
1. you are rounding up the numbers. transactions have a wide range of fees. from 0 sat/byte to 700 sat/byte. and also they have a wide range of sizes from small 190 byte to big ass tens of kilobyte. and if anything you should multiply fee/byte with total size in byte not number of tx * average fee.
2. you could have used blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions. the total fee of transactions in memory pool is currently at 258.915BTC and size is 139 MB

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: digaran on May 06, 2017, 07:06:30 AM

Honest pools/miners should provide a service similar to what ViaBTC is offering to manually submit our TXs and if the big pools do that, then we can make sure the automated spams doesn't happen.

To be perfectly honest, ViaBTC isn't offering that because they want to help the users. They are offering it so that they can spread propaganda on their website. The 100 TX limit per block is very arbitrary.

Quote from: Heruur on May 06, 2017, 07:40:42 AM

If it was a spam attack the estimated cost is : 20000 Tx (number of min spam transaction estimated) * 93099 sat (Avg fees per Tx) = 18.61980000 BTC (28856 $)

Your calculation is a overestimation. Average transactions fees are a bad measurement. The spammer can create lean transaction which are in <300 bytes per TX. Assuming a fee-rate of 220sat/bytes (I don't see why they'd use one that is this high anywhere), it comes down to =< 66 000 per TX. Also, $30k is trivial money for big players.

Quote from: Xester on May 06, 2017, 07:47:19 AM

In the end it is all about profit, they want to have big profit and they can only that if they can scheme that there is a huge traffic in the bitcoin network but in reality it was just a spam attack.

Incorrect. There is high traffic in the Bitcoin network, far higher than any other network. This is a combination of said traffic and a spam attack.

Xester

hero member

Activity: 994

Merit: 544

Quote from: OmegaStarScream on May 06, 2017, 03:53:18 AM

I believe that the unconfirmed transaction number reached all time high as I never seen it like this before. (100,000+)
Is it theoretically possible to create a solution for the current spam attacks that we are facing? (assuming that we already have SegWit, bigger blocks, etc.). I believe that people could always do this spam attacks, even though It costs money, someone who have something against bitcoin will definitely pay for the "cause".

The spam attacks were also coming from the miner themselves and I believe that the purpose of which is for them to tell that public that there is network traffic and that for the bitcoin users to have a fast transaction they have to pay high miner fees. In the end it is all about profit, they want to have big profit and they can only that if they can scheme that there is a huge traffic in the bitcoin network but in reality it was just a spam attack.

Heruur

full member

Activity: 140

Merit: 100

You have just to analysed stats of bitcoin on 05/05/2017 : http://statoshi.info/dashboard/db/memory-pool

If it was a spam attack the estimated cost is : 20000 Tx (number of min spam transaction estimated) * 93099 sat (Avg fees per Tx) = 18.61980000 BTC (28856 $)

digaran

copper member

Activity: 1330

Merit: 899

🖤😏

Ban them nodes relaying those spams, ignore them and refuse to sync with them, then start rejecting any blocks containing spam transactions.
This needs everyone to work together, and if the majority of miners/nodes are doing the spamming and mining them then what are we doing here? we don't have any power unless we fight them with more than 50% of hash power.

Honest pools/miners should provide a service similar to what ViaBTC is offering to manually submit our TXs and if the big pools do that, then we can make sure the automated spams doesn't happen.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: Slark on May 06, 2017, 06:44:54 AM

Same goes for every scaling solution (BU, BIP 100), as tx capacity is directly linked to blocksize, so increasing blocksize will help.

Wrong. You don't know what you're talking about. Both of those "solutions" would damage and even possibly kill the network due to an DOS attack vector.

Quote from: Slark on May 06, 2017, 06:44:54 AM

The downside of this solution is, that even 2MB or bigger blocks can be spammed, as the space is still limited and we don't have anti spam filter AFAIK.

Common sense.

Quote from: Slark on May 06, 2017, 06:44:54 AM

There is a high chance that current spamming attacks are conducted by someone who wants BTC to be upgraded ASAP and once we will, spam attack will stop.

I highly doubt that any attacks will stop, especially until the actor is either "banished" from BTC by everyone or succeeds in exerting totalitarian control (see BU president).

Go spam somewhere else with your alts and let the *adults* do the talking, alright?

Slark

legendary

Activity: 1862

Merit: 1004

Quote from: Lauda on May 06, 2017, 06:36:50 AM

As of now, there is no solution. The intermediary relief would be adopting Segwit which would let us process more transactions per second.

Same goes for every scaling solution (BU, BIP 100), as tx capacity is directly linked to blocksize, so increasing blocksize will help.
The downside of this solution is, that even 2MB or bigger blocks can be spammed, as the space is still limited and we don't have anti spam filter AFAIK.

There is a high chance that current spamming attacks are conducted by someone who wants BTC to be upgraded ASAP and once we will, spam attack will stop.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

OP we can't even solve spam on a centralized platform such as Bitcointalk. Roll Eyes

Take a look:

Quote from: SvenBomvolen on May 06, 2017, 05:05:53 AM

People will not stop talking and spamming in any case. many of them just live with that. It called speculation and reasons can be different: to make the price for bitcoin to fall or to awake the interest to altcoins and many others actually.

Quote from: Emoclaw on May 06, 2017, 05:09:27 AM

The chance of there actually being spam attacks is very low. The cost is too high and the congested mempool for a few hours does nothing to harm Bitcoin in any way.
Bitcoin's price clearly reflects that.

Quote from: lottery248 on May 06, 2017, 05:20:47 AM

if their fees are low, then if you put a slightly higher fee for the transaction, then you don't need to worry about it. miners put the higher possibility of verifying higher fee transaction, so doesn't matter. if you cannot hold with the high volume unconfirmed transaction, time to switch to other altcoin for temporary use.

Quote from: Vaccinus on May 06, 2017, 05:50:56 AM

is the spam attack the reason for this high fee? aren't spammer sending these attacks with no fee? by logic, they are not increase the average fee if their attack have zero fee, and there is no impact on the transaction fee, what is the purpose of these attack then? i'm just asking because i can't understand

Quote from: d5000 on May 06, 2017, 04:38:36 AM

I am not sure if that's really a spam attack. Surely there is some spam, but the fees that were paid for the largest number of transactions are pretty high for that (100-120 satoshis/bytes), and as expected, now that the weekend has begun, the mempools are a bit emptier again.

It is a spam attack with a combination of increased demand to an already constrained block space supply. It only takes some research time to find the addresses sending thousands of transactions between each other.

Quote from: OmegaStarScream on May 06, 2017, 03:53:18 AM

I believe that people could always do this spam attacks, even though It costs money, someone who have something against bitcoin will definitely pay for the "cause".

As of now, there is no solution. The intermediary relief would be adopting Segwit which would let us process more transactions per second.

Vaccinus

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 250

Quote from: OmegaStarScream on May 06, 2017, 03:53:18 AM

I believe that the unconfirmed transaction number reached all time high as I never seen it like this before. (100,000+)
Is it theoretically possible to create a solution for the current spam attacks that we are facing? (assuming that we already have SegWit, bigger blocks, etc.). I believe that people could always do this spam attacks, even though It costs money, someone who have something against bitcoin will definitely pay for the "cause".

is the spam attack the reason for this high fee? aren't spammer sending these attacks with no fee? by logic, they are not increase the average fee if their attack have zero fee, and there is no impact on the transaction fee, what is the purpose of these attack then? i'm just asking because i can't understand

lottery248

legendary

Activity: 1568

Merit: 1005

beware of your keys.

if their fees are low, then if you put a slightly higher fee for the transaction, then you don't need to worry about it. miners put the higher possibility of verifying higher fee transaction, so doesn't matter. if you cannot hold with the high volume unconfirmed transaction, time to switch to other altcoin for temporary use.

Topic: Spam attack solution? (Read 1083 times)