Topic: "Stress Tests", Spammers, Attacks: Burning My Butt. Very Bad. - page 3. (Read 5344 times)

If BTC were to fall to dirt cheap some day, it means people are losing faith with cryptocurrency and there is no denying that the other cryptocurrency will follow the same path as well. The altcoins are merely nothing without BTC anyway ( however there is no denying as well there are some good project of altcoins )


I merely look at this "stress test" from two sides point of view. First, this is an "attack" to the live network and there is no denying to that and second, this "stress test" is actually another way to show people about the effect of the current blocksize rather than showing them data and charts after you do your testing on testnet. People will "learn" much easier from "experiences" .

As for the larger blocks issue, I would say that the potential for larger spam will always be there however limiting the blocksize to the current one or even make it smaller is not the solution for it as well. This may be an "attack" for now however I am seeing this from the brighter side that is how the network will be in the upcoming years after there are alot more people that jump into BTC

This attacker had shown their intention I guess, they want "bigger block size" . Could be from Gavin and his minnions however atleast thanks to this I have a projection of what the future network will be (atleast a glimpse of it )

I see. but it won't stop the mempool from being filled. shouldn't this affect nodes at some point? what's the critical mass to shut a node down in terms of mempool size?

Only 6 hours? Hahaha dude, i am waiting for more than 48 hours now and still not even one confirmation, WTF 

This is already a soft rule.  The priority is calculated from the sum of (input size multiplied by age) and divided by transaction size.  Spam usually use young inputs as well, making the priority very low.  If the priority of a transaction is too low, Bitcoin Core won't relay it at all if it doesn't offer a fee.  Certainly not mine it.

Bigger block sizes?  So far this has only demonstrated the fact that the blocks are too big already.  Perhaps this will be an adequate size in the future, but right now 1 MB blocks are too large.  The prospect of even larger blocks with room for even more malicious spam is not a good one.

Announcing a malicious spam attack does not make it a "test".  It is still a malicious spam attack.  Move over to the testnet if you want to test something, e.g. how to stop transaction spam.

why not implement fee rules? like if a tx is under a certain threshhold it MUST offer a fee

Probably not, and certainly not without generating other problems.  We only know for sure that larger blocks will have room for more malicious spam and slow everything else down.

That is beside my point but in any case if you support just Bitcoin you are not really smart, like people supporting just gold or silver or Facebook stock or whatever other single-point-of-failure stuff.

A stress test on a live network is a good way of making people realize about what will "happen" in the future . By simply doing this in live network, he could easily prove that a bigger block sizes is needed because most people will affected by this rather than doing it in a testnet and later presented the effect of it in form of data and charts.

However this is not a test at all because it is not announced before hand and no one knows who did this at all. It is simply an attack to the network. Completely wild west way of showing things to people, you killed a person, throw their dead body in the middle of the city and put up an unintentional message that everyone will suffer if you dont follow up the rules

sure, but still...actually doesn't matter who is behind. he must pay fees and he is stressing bitcoin network basically for free. even, it is not comfortable, we all can see now, what you can do with literally few bitcoin and how many users and services you may affect only if you want.

I hope that core developers closely watching what is happening and it will simply help them to find out some feasible solution.

btw, sorry for conspiracy theory, but if if these stress tests are done by miners in order to increase their income, because this is pushing people to pay higher fees for comfortable waiting time?)

any one knows when is the next stress test going to be ? i would like to be ready before sending out any transactions with manual fees last time i was stuck for like 6 hours with no confirmations.

Of course, and so far nothing new has been discovered.  If this was done by a responsible person instead of a malicious attacker, it would have been tested on the testnet.  This is the reason why we have a testnet.

Yes, not relaying transactions if the fee per kB is too low has been the default policy for years.  Unless the priority is high enough.

better to know how the network behaves when stressed, than be surprised later, once some rich stupids will start with real stress never ending testing scenarios. what we have see now is really "nothing", compare to fact, how much it cost and what is overall impact to transactions..

just think about it.

Even if it is not the original implementation of BTC , the fees will simply be a solution after the block reward run out. It may be a niche thing to consider for now since the block reward is still there however once there is no more block reward then this fees will serve its purpose. Eliminating the fees could be a solution for the current problem however it will make another problem which is why this could not be use as a solution for this problem


Banning the low fee Transaction could not be a countermeasure at all because the attacker will simply only need to increase his "attacks" fee to continue this and everyone will be forced to put in an even higher fee and that is killing micropayment. Killing micropayment is hindering BTC growth I'd say


Not a stress test, more like an attack to prove that we actually need a bigger block sizes


I thought most people here support BTC rather than altcoin? So know people are suggesting to ignore micropayment and ask them to shift into altcoin instead? lol


Yes it is but it creates a whole lot more problem so it is not the solution

20MB blocks would solve this 

+1

If you must move low amounts of BTC exchange to exchange just use altcoins. There are many of them with high enough liquidity that converting BTC to altcoin, sending altcoin to destination exchange and converting altcoin back to BTC should not be an issue in terms of losing much money (you might actualy make money, e.g. exchange arbitrage). Depending on altcoin, the whole deal can be completed in under few minutes which is mostly not the case with sending BTC.

Hmm maybe he is still busy studying the effects of it. Well, it's already exhibiting in the network. I made a transaction 5 hours ago with sufficient fees and until now, 0 confirmations. This is quite annoying, because I need those bitcoins in an hour. If he is up for study, then he must come up also with a plausible and possible solution to end this madness if ever this happened again.

I think it's looking like an attack the longer it goes on. KingAfurah, the person who started the stress testing, said he wanted to study what effect increasing the mempool size to >150MB was in one of his last posts. He's been silent for over a week, but i think it's him doing the spamming.

I wish that telling them to stop is easy. This is not a stress test, people. This is an attack. If this is a stress testing, some people will claim that they are behind this, seeing whether the network could sustain this spams until it wouldn't work anymore to come up with a possible solution. Turns out, it isn't. People who posted that we've reached the peak of transactions don't understand what really is happening.