Stress tests my ass.
Gavin's Bitcoin-XT lovers are f*cking the network, I've been waiting for confirmation since yesterday and now there're over 20MB tx which is not confirmed.
Hey Gavin, is that you? F*cking the network to force everyone for bigger blocks?
Topic: "Stress Tests", Spammers, Attacks: Burning My Butt. Very Bad. - page 4. (Read 5344 times)
Can someone give me a headsup?
Is it still going on?
Looking at https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions there is still a backlog of 16 MB.
at https://tradeblock.com/blockchain it is even 49 MB.
Is it still going on?
Looking at https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions there is still a backlog of 16 MB.
at https://tradeblock.com/blockchain it is even 49 MB.
Yes I think it's still going on. I checked the amount of unconfirmed transactions on blockchain.info hours ago and it was over 15000. Now it's almost 20000. Someone has to be spamming the network for the unconfirmed transactions to increase that quickly. I've been waiting for a transaction to be confirmed for 20 hours now, and I've not had one confirmation yet.
Perhaps we tie the fees to unconfirmed tx.. The more there are the higher the cost. Want to spam the network when it's got 100k uncofirmed, $10 bucks a transaction, 200k, $50, 500k, $100.
Break the bastards by making miners rich.
Break the bastards by making miners rich.
I think banning any low fee Tx is a reasonable countermeasure. Remember the so called "test" costs money to launch. I do not support asking them to stop, I support bleeding them dry if they want to continue DDOSing the blockchain.
An easier remedy using two options, mainly for miners:
Reserve 1/5th of each block for high priority/low fee transactions. The spam has very low priority, and won't be helped by it. Transactions using older inputs and having decent sized outputs will get high priority:
-blockprioritysize=200000 # Default is 50000
Set minimum fee for relaying a transaction to 0.0003 BTC. This is more than the current spam. Transactions with lower fees will still confirm as long as the priority (see above) is sufficient:
-minrelaytxfee=0.0003 # Default is 0.00001
The last option will reduce mempool for everyone running full nodes, and will make it harder for the spam to propagate through the network. If you mine, please consider pushing your pool to do this, or switch to a more bitcoin friendly pool.
This last one is new to me. Is the idea that you dno't even relay transactions that are othewise valid unless they include a fee? I didn't realize that anyone had already implemented such a policy.
1) Ban / not recognize transactions under BTC0.001
2) Ban / not recognize miner's fees under BTC0.0002
An easier remedy using two options, mainly for miners:2) Ban / not recognize miner's fees under BTC0.0002
Reserve 1/5th of each block for high priority/low fee transactions. The spam has very low priority, and won't be helped by it. Transactions using older inputs and having decent sized outputs will get high priority:
-blockprioritysize=200000 # Default is 50000
Set minimum fee for relaying a transaction to 0.0003 BTC. This is more than the current spam. Transactions with lower fees will still confirm as long as the priority (see above) is sufficient:
-minrelaytxfee=0.0003 # Default is 0.00001
The last option will reduce mempool for everyone running full nodes, and will make it harder for the spam to propagate through the network. If you mine, please consider pushing your pool to do this, or switch to a more bitcoin friendly pool.
Stop the damn stress tests I say. I'd like to move money around like it used to be, with low fees and fast confirmations.
End the madness!!
.End the madness!!
agreed
Yeah the real numbers are much lower around 20k in the mempool but the number is growing. This is not a stress test.
Its not a stress test its an attack. And its only costing a few hundred dollars a day to carry out.
Within 24 hours there will be over 400k unconfirmed transactions in the mempool within a week it will be over 1 million and anyone who tries to run a full node won't have enough RAM and the whole network will fall. Any computer that tries to load all those unconfirmed transactions (because the mempool has no overflow) will crash. Even if we could get consensus for a 2mb block it would only delay the inevitable collapse of the network.Bitcoin will be dead in 30 days. Bitcoin transactions will slow down far worse then it is now.
Within 24 hours there will be over 400k unconfirmed transactions in the mempool within a week it will be over 1 million and anyone who tries to run a full node won't have enough RAM and the whole network will fall. Any computer that tries to load all those unconfirmed transactions (because the mempool has no overflow) will crash. Even if we could get consensus for a 2mb block it would only delay the inevitable collapse of the network.
yeah, but it's not that grim in my opinion. micro transaction services will move to dogecoin or other altcoins to prevent days of waiting time, if this continues. correct me if I'm wrong, but we will always be able to send decent value with a little higher fee in a timely fashion?
Its not a stress test its an attack. And its only costing a few hundred dollars a day to carry out.
Within 24 hours there will be over 400k unconfirmed transactions in the mempool within a week it will be over 1 million and anyone who tries to run a full node won't have enough RAM and the whole network will fall. Any computer that tries to load all those unconfirmed transactions (because the mempool has no overflow) will crash. Even if we could get consensus for a 2mb block it would only delay the inevitable collapse of the network.Bitcoin will be dead in 30 days. Bitcoin transactions will slow down far worse then it is now.
Edit: you guys know I"m fucking with you right?
Within 24 hours there will be over 400k unconfirmed transactions in the mempool within a week it will be over 1 million and anyone who tries to run a full node won't have enough RAM and the whole network will fall. Any computer that tries to load all those unconfirmed transactions (because the mempool has no overflow) will crash. Even if we could get consensus for a 2mb block it would only delay the inevitable collapse of the network.
Edit: you guys know I"m fucking with you right?
Can someone give me a headsup?
Is it still going on?
Looking at https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions there is still a backlog of 16 MB.
at https://tradeblock.com/blockchain it is even 49 MB.
Is it still going on?
Looking at https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions there is still a backlog of 16 MB.
at https://tradeblock.com/blockchain it is even 49 MB.
Stress test still going? 
took 10 hours yesterday to clear a simple tx for me. I think it's time to add a higher tx fee for the moment
took 10 hours yesterday to clear a simple tx for me. I think it's time to add a higher tx fee for the moment it is an incentive to miners but it is a side effect it is not the intention. Original implementation was not supposed to have any fees, then fees were lazily created to avoid spam. And that is what fees are for, to prevent spam, if they are not serving the purpose fees should be eliminated and an actual solution should be created.
Erm... no. Fees always have been and always will be part of the plan. Quoting from the Bitcoin whitepaper:
You are wrong, do your research. In case you are correct the bitcoin developers lied to everyone about it, sou you saying they are all liars?
No one lied about anything, there just seems to have been a misunderstanding here. I don't know where you got this idea from that fees aren't an integral part of the design, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't one of the developers.
6. Incentive
By convention, the first transaction in a block is a special transaction that starts a new coin owned
by the creator of the block. This adds an incentive for nodes to support the network, and provides
a way to initially distribute coins into circulation, since there is no central authority to issue them.
The steady addition of a constant of amount of new coins is analogous to gold miners expending
resources to add gold to circulation. In our case, it is CPU time and electricity that is expended.
The fees as incentive were a suggestion . not the convention and were not originally part of Bitcoin. If you search this very board you will find very old posts about it, when fees were added. It was all about spam. I will try to find them if i have the time.
I also want to see some evidence that fee's was not part of the original design. Please feel free to post it here.
According to my research, it was part of the original design to substitute the block rewards. So according to you...What will secure the network when the block reward runs out?
In the end, it does not matter... The fee's lubricate the Bitcoin gears in my opinion... and if it helps to stop spam, it's beneficial to the whole network.
bananas you are simply wrong in every way. I will not waste time trying to argue with you tho because your clearly mentally challenged.
it is an incentive to miners but it is a side effect it is not the intention. Original implementation was not supposed to have any fees, then fees were lazily created to avoid spam. And that is what fees are for, to prevent spam, if they are not serving the purpose fees should be eliminated and an actual solution should be created.
Erm... no. Fees always have been and always will be part of the plan. Quoting from the Bitcoin whitepaper:
You are wrong, do your research. In case you are correct the bitcoin developers lied to everyone about it, sou you saying they are all liars?
No one lied about anything, there just seems to have been a misunderstanding here. I don't know where you got this idea from that fees aren't an integral part of the design, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't one of the developers.
6. Incentive
By convention, the first transaction in a block is a special transaction that starts a new coin owned
by the creator of the block. This adds an incentive for nodes to support the network, and provides
a way to initially distribute coins into circulation, since there is no central authority to issue them.
The steady addition of a constant of amount of new coins is analogous to gold miners expending
resources to add gold to circulation. In our case, it is CPU time and electricity that is expended.
The fees as incentive were a suggestion . not the convention and were not originally part of Bitcoin. If you search this very board you will find very old posts about it, when fees were added. It was all about spam. I will try to find them if i have the time.
Stop the damn stress tests I say. I'd like to move money around like it used to be, with low fees and fast confirmations.
End the madness!!
End the madness!!
Your options are this. Higher fees and a secure network OR Micro transactions/low fees and virtually no security.
But people want a very secure network and zero fees!
(as well as 1GB blocks and instant confirmations)
Yep it's very bad. Yesterday it took around 20 hours to confirm a tx sent to me.
But if someone has paid the miners' fee, he/she has the right to get the ride.
Though there's no convenient way to solve it, some improvement is urgently required.
On the one hand, a raised block size is desirable. We simply cannot just rely on waiting for sidechain or lightning to come up with a solution on this.
On the other hand is the floating tx fee. It should be set to default in every wallet software, especially the SPV clients. At least a prompt to alert the users who want to send any coins when such attacks are going on. The latest Bitcoin core has already got this nice little feature.
But if someone has paid the miners' fee, he/she has the right to get the ride.
Though there's no convenient way to solve it, some improvement is urgently required.
On the one hand, a raised block size is desirable. We simply cannot just rely on waiting for sidechain or lightning to come up with a solution on this.
On the other hand is the floating tx fee. It should be set to default in every wallet software, especially the SPV clients. At least a prompt to alert the users who want to send any coins when such attacks are going on. The latest Bitcoin core has already got this nice little feature.
Yes fees are vital to bitcoin miners as incentive and vital to the network to stop spam attacks.
Because of this Micro transactions will have to be forced off the block chain. As of right now 99.4% of the incentive to mine bitcoin
comes from block rewards and only 0.6% from transaction fees.
People need to understand that no change in the protocol can force miners to include more transactions into each block. They are the gate keepers and they hold all the keys.
If we want a secured network, at its current size, without block rewards, we would have to pay 5 USD per transaction (right now) that's the reality of the situation.
It costs 5 USD per transaction to secure the network right now. In the future that cost will have to be paid in full with transaction fees.
Your options are this. Higher fees and a secure network OR Micro transactions/low fees and virtually no security.
Because of this Micro transactions will have to be forced off the block chain. As of right now 99.4% of the incentive to mine bitcoin
comes from block rewards and only 0.6% from transaction fees.
People need to understand that no change in the protocol can force miners to include more transactions into each block. They are the gate keepers and they hold all the keys.
If we want a secured network, at its current size, without block rewards, we would have to pay 5 USD per transaction (right now) that's the reality of the situation.
It costs 5 USD per transaction to secure the network right now. In the future that cost will have to be paid in full with transaction fees.
Your options are this. Higher fees and a secure network OR Micro transactions/low fees and virtually no security.
it is an incentive to miners but it is a side effect it is not the intention. Original implementation was not supposed to have any fees, then fees were lazily created to avoid spam. And that is what fees are for, to prevent spam, if they are not serving the purpose fees should be eliminated and an actual solution should be created.
Erm... no. Fees always have been and always will be part of the plan. Quoting from the Bitcoin whitepaper:
You are wrong, do your research. In case you are correct the bitcoin developers lied to everyone about it, sou you saying they are all liars?
No one lied about anything, there just seems to have been a misunderstanding here. I don't know where you got this idea from that fees aren't an integral part of the design, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't one of the developers.
Jump to: