Those with an incentive to attack the bitcoin network - page 3.

Borisz

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 251

Quote from: AgentofCoin

If miners all raise their fees, without outside influence on the network (the spam attack), then it would be seen as corrupt/bad by the community.
The spam attack gives the miners a reason to raise fee much earlier in advance of block rewards lowering.
Miners fees went up 2000% at minimum during backlog.

This.It is a good excuse to push the fees higher. If users get used to it and simply keep adding this out of fear that their transactions won't confirm in time, then by investing a few thousand dollars they made an extra surplus income for a long time. Maybe it is worth on the long run. Also, it is not just the minimum fee that is increased I guess, but high priority payments have to pay even more now. Those are the good transactions miners want.

The real question is:How much capital do(es) the attacker(s), stress tester(s) have? Can they sustain the spamming when the blocksize will be increased? Roll Eyes

Or in shorter time frame, how long can they keep going? Hate to admit, but if it goes like this on the long run it won't be a good thing for bitcoin.

AgentofCoin

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1001

Quote from: AgentofCoin on July 13, 2015, 11:45:18 AM

Narrowed down to four options:
(1) Chinese Miners, attempting to get the fee/zero limits rasied.
(2) Chinese LTC Pumpers, attempting to get Bitcoin users to transfer to LTC.
(3) OKCoin Exchange, attempting manipulation to prevent their bankruptcy.
(4) All the above working together in some form or another. Wink

Anyone thinking this is a bank or billionaires doing this for shits is on the wrong path.
This was purposefully done, to facilitate some sort of manipulated realized gain.

Quote from: SebastianJu on July 13, 2015, 01:48:49 PM

I think 1 is unlikely because miners already can decide what transactions they want to include. They can even create empty blocks or accept only transactions with a minimum fee of 0.1 Bitcoin, when they want. And since china has the biggest miners, they likely could sit together and work out a plan. Then only accept high fee transactions. All other transactions would wait considerably longer then. At the end the fees most probably would rise.

If miners all raise their fees, without outside influence on the network (the spam attack), then it would be seen as corrupt/bad by the community.
The spam attack gives the miners a reason to raise fee much earlier in advance of block rewards lowering.
Miners fees went up 2000% at minimum during backlog.
What you outlined above is exactly what happened. So why do you think it is unlikely?

Quote from: SebastianJu on July 13, 2015, 01:48:49 PM

I dont see that, litecoin price dropped, shortly later bitcoin too. Doesnt look correlated to me.

Your observation should be viewed earlier in the timeline. The recent attack started July 7, 2015. LTC pump started from there.
Due to network problems, some users decided to "invest" into LTC to diversify their holdings, before the price dropped.
One of the reasons LTC rose was because BTC users did so and did so since old LTC Dev (now at coinbase) stated that LTC has spam protections and faster confirms.
People trading altcoins know what I'm talking about.

Quote from: SebastianJu on July 13, 2015, 01:48:49 PM

3? OKCoin is bankrupt? Guess i missed some news. And i dont see how spamming could help. Exchanges surely use high enough Transaction fees.

They are on verge potentially. Fractional reserve trading has cost them greatly.
They also trade LTC, just FYI.

Hazir

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1005

★Nitrogensports.eu★

Quote from: achow101 on July 09, 2015, 08:27:22 PM

Quote from: Alley on July 09, 2015, 08:24:49 PM

It may have a inadvertent positive effect as well as it apears usage has exploded as were over 190,000 tx per day now.

It isn't real usage. That is just the spammer spamming the blockchain incessantly, causing it to seem like usage has gone up when in fact it has not. Most of those extra transactions are just dust transactions between the attacker's own addresses.

Number of bitcoin transaction is not really adequate factor to build assumptions of network growth. It is the most overhyped property of bitcoin imo.
Dust transaction under some limit shouldn't be counted towards total number of BTC transactions. Especially now, when network is flooded with fake tx.

monsanto

legendary

Activity: 1241

Merit: 1005

..like bright metal on a sullen ground.

Quote from: SebastianJu on July 13, 2015, 01:48:49 PM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on July 13, 2015, 11:45:18 AM

Narrowed down to four options:
(1) Chinese Miners, attempting to get the fee/zero limits rasied.
(2) Chinese LTC Pumpers, attempting to get Bitcoin users to transfer to LTC.
(3) OKCoin Exchange, attempting manipulation to prevent their bankruptcy.
(4) All the above working together in some form or another. Wink

Anyone thinking this is a bank or billionaires doing this for shits is on the wrong path.
This was purposefully done, to facilitate some sort of manipulated realized gain.

I think 1 is unlikely because miners already can decide what transactions they want to include. They can even create empty blocks or accept only transactions with a minimum fee of 0.1 Bitcoin, when they want. And since china has the biggest miners, they likely could sit together and work out a plan. Then only accept high fee transactions. All other transactions would wait considerably longer then. At the end the fees most probably would rise.

I dont see that, litecoin price dropped, shortly later bitcoin too. Doesnt look correlated to me.

3? OKCoin is bankrupt? Guess i missed some news. And i dont see how spamming could help. Exchanges surely use high enough Transaction fees.

Exchanges do benefit greatly from any induced volatility (i.e., volume increase) from an attack with increased trading fee income. It's very unlikely they would do such a plan but I'd think OKcoin is making a lot more than the cost of the attack from the increased btc and ltc volume. Price stability is the enemy of the exchanges.

SebastianJu

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 1083

Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile

Quote from: AgentofCoin on July 13, 2015, 11:45:18 AM

Narrowed down to four options:
(1) Chinese Miners, attempting to get the fee/zero limits rasied.
(2) Chinese LTC Pumpers, attempting to get Bitcoin users to transfer to LTC.
(3) OKCoin Exchange, attempting manipulation to prevent their bankruptcy.
(4) All the above working together in some form or another. Wink

Anyone thinking this is a bank or billionaires doing this for shits is on the wrong path.
This was purposefully done, to facilitate some sort of manipulated realized gain.

I think 1 is unlikely because miners already can decide what transactions they want to include. They can even create empty blocks or accept only transactions with a minimum fee of 0.1 Bitcoin, when they want. And since china has the biggest miners, they likely could sit together and work out a plan. Then only accept high fee transactions. All other transactions would wait considerably longer then. At the end the fees most probably would rise.

I dont see that, litecoin price dropped, shortly later bitcoin too. Doesnt look correlated to me.

3? OKCoin is bankrupt? Guess i missed some news. And i dont see how spamming could help. Exchanges surely use high enough Transaction fees.

Borisz

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 251

Quote from: jeannemadrigal2 on July 13, 2015, 11:39:20 AM

Quote from: Borisz on July 13, 2015, 07:39:56 AM

Quote from: turvarya on July 13, 2015, 07:29:58 AM

Quote from: Borisz on July 13, 2015, 06:43:00 AM

Quote from: turvarya on July 13, 2015, 06:26:42 AM

So, we don't know who is doing this stress test, so we just guess, it is the same guys, that did the other stress test, which identity we also don't know. That thinking brings us forward a lot Roll Eyes

Well, OK, I know about 1 stress test that I read:

Quote

Bitcoin brokerage CoinWallet.eu had planned the stress test starting 22 June at 13:00 GMT, to last for 100 blocks. It had sought to spend 20 BTC (around $5,000) on transactions totaling about 200MB in data.

(http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-network-survives-stress-test/)

However 100 blocks were supposed to last ~16 hours, right? All this for 20 BTC, 5000$ at the time. Now this was a few weeks ago, however the network is still under stress. Am I missing some newer news about stress tests?Or is it that they have flooded the network with so much junk transaction that it still hasn't been flushed? (unlikely)
Or is it that now everybody is "testing" the network for their own research that is causing the problem in the end?

We also don't really know, who this CoinWallet.eu-guys are. It may just be a cover, so people don't get suspicious.
My guess is, that a lot of people are "testing", so, a lot of copycats are going about, with different agendas. I am still wondering, since even if it is more than one entity, there must be some players in there, who have a lot of BTC to burn.

True, you can easily set up a site and then operate under that name. Still, I am also not sure about their endgame. Putting so much money into this, there must be a plan.

I was thinking perhaps it is some large mining operators trying to force users to pay bigger fees. If you think about it and say they own 30% of the mining power (whatever big Chinese farm) then 30% of the expenses flow back to them (if those transactions go through at all) and they get even more revenue from increased block fees, since users are forced due to the large network activity.

But I wonder how the math works out? Would they really make enough to cover the cost of the attacks? The tx fees are really small, and to get your tx priority does not take very much increase. So I wonder even if they did make money on it, would it be enough money to make it worth while?

Maybe on the long run, down the road it is worth somehow. I haven't done the maths in depth, but they would be probably making pennies compared to their expenses...It was just a thought. If I'll get some free time and come up with a justification for myself, I might go dig a bit into the numbers and miner farms.

I just can't believe that a developed business would do something like this. Businesses worth of over 100 Billion $ wouldn't need to do such things to a "negligible" competitor. Also, if this was found out, it would be bad media and publicity for them. I think such businesses would have more to lose than win with such a move. All they could possibly win is a "proof" that the network is not as fee-free as advertised and can take long(er) for transactions to go through. (not longer than banks in general, but longer than "advertised" again)

AgentofCoin

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1001

Quote from: LiteCoinGuy on July 13, 2015, 11:58:57 AM

good to have Litecoin too Cool

I have no problem with LTC, in general.

What I was referring to, was the Chinese LTC Pumpers, who recently pumped it with the intention of dumping on people.
See here: https://blog.bitmex.com/chinese-promoter-pumping-litecoin-via-ponzi-scheme/

By messing with the Bitcoin Network, some BTC Users may have bought into LTC at that time, increasing their profits in their dump.

It is estimated that the Chinese Pumpers made $1.8 Million USD or 6980+ BTC.

LiteCoinGuy

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1014

In Satoshi I Trust

you can hurt Bitcoin for a short period of time, but you have to attack Litecoin too Cool

AgentofCoin

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1001

Narrowed down to four options:
(1) Chinese Miners, attempting to get the fee/zero limits rasied.
(2) Chinese LTC Pumpers, attempting to get Bitcoin users to transfer to LTC.
(3) OKCoin Exchange, attempting manipulation to prevent their bankruptcy.
(4) All the above working together in some form or another. Wink

Anyone thinking this is a bank or billionaires doing this for shits is on the wrong path.
This was purposefully done, to facilitate some sort of manipulated realized gain.

jeannemadrigal2

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

Quote from: Borisz on July 13, 2015, 07:39:56 AM

Quote from: turvarya on July 13, 2015, 07:29:58 AM

Quote from: Borisz on July 13, 2015, 06:43:00 AM

Quote from: turvarya on July 13, 2015, 06:26:42 AM

So, we don't know who is doing this stress test, so we just guess, it is the same guys, that did the other stress test, which identity we also don't know. That thinking brings us forward a lot Roll Eyes

Well, OK, I know about 1 stress test that I read:

Quote

Bitcoin brokerage CoinWallet.eu had planned the stress test starting 22 June at 13:00 GMT, to last for 100 blocks. It had sought to spend 20 BTC (around $5,000) on transactions totaling about 200MB in data.

(http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-network-survives-stress-test/)

However 100 blocks were supposed to last ~16 hours, right? All this for 20 BTC, 5000$ at the time. Now this was a few weeks ago, however the network is still under stress. Am I missing some newer news about stress tests?Or is it that they have flooded the network with so much junk transaction that it still hasn't been flushed? (unlikely)
Or is it that now everybody is "testing" the network for their own research that is causing the problem in the end?

We also don't really know, who this CoinWallet.eu-guys are. It may just be a cover, so people don't get suspicious.
My guess is, that a lot of people are "testing", so, a lot of copycats are going about, with different agendas. I am still wondering, since even if it is more than one entity, there must be some players in there, who have a lot of BTC to burn.

True, you can easily set up a site and then operate under that name. Still, I am also not sure about their endgame. Putting so much money into this, there must be a plan.

I was thinking perhaps it is some large mining operators trying to force users to pay bigger fees. If you think about it and say they own 30% of the mining power (whatever big Chinese farm) then 30% of the expenses flow back to them (if those transactions go through at all) and they get even more revenue from increased block fees, since users are forced due to the large network activity.

But I wonder how the math works out? Would they really make enough to cover the cost of the attacks? The tx fees are really small, and to get your tx priority does not take very much increase. So I wonder even if they did make money on it, would it be enough money to make it worth while?

botany

legendary

Activity: 1582

Merit: 1064

My vote for bored billionaires.
Somebody is burning money to cause this attack.

shad_90

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

Quote from: monsanto on July 09, 2015, 02:57:53 PM

1. Established payment systems.

^^^
They should start accepting BTC instead of attacking it. If they can attack BTC they can also be attacked. BTC wasn't developed by farmers or street beggers. If people can develop such a system and maintain it, they can protect it, too (through aggression if it will be needed).
Other Altcoins can be a challenge.

zvs

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1000

https://web.archive.org/web/*/nogleg.com

Quote from: monsanto on July 09, 2015, 02:57:53 PM

5. Bored billionaires.

More like bored person with a few thousand to waste, the way it's set up currently

Borisz

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 251

Quote from: turvarya on July 13, 2015, 07:29:58 AM

Quote from: Borisz on July 13, 2015, 06:43:00 AM

Quote from: turvarya on July 13, 2015, 06:26:42 AM

So, we don't know who is doing this stress test, so we just guess, it is the same guys, that did the other stress test, which identity we also don't know. That thinking brings us forward a lot Roll Eyes

Well, OK, I know about 1 stress test that I read:

Quote

Bitcoin brokerage CoinWallet.eu had planned the stress test starting 22 June at 13:00 GMT, to last for 100 blocks. It had sought to spend 20 BTC (around $5,000) on transactions totaling about 200MB in data.

(http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-network-survives-stress-test/)

However 100 blocks were supposed to last ~16 hours, right? All this for 20 BTC, 5000$ at the time. Now this was a few weeks ago, however the network is still under stress. Am I missing some newer news about stress tests?Or is it that they have flooded the network with so much junk transaction that it still hasn't been flushed? (unlikely)
Or is it that now everybody is "testing" the network for their own research that is causing the problem in the end?

We also don't really know, who this CoinWallet.eu-guys are. It may just be a cover, so people don't get suspicious.
My guess is, that a lot of people are "testing", so, a lot of copycats are going about, with different agendas. I am still wondering, since even if it is more than one entity, there must be some players in there, who have a lot of BTC to burn.

True, you can easily set up a site and then operate under that name. Still, I am also not sure about their endgame. Putting so much money into this, there must be a plan.

I was thinking perhaps it is some large mining operators trying to force users to pay bigger fees. If you think about it and say they own 30% of the mining power (whatever big Chinese farm) then 30% of the expenses flow back to them (if those transactions go through at all) and they get even more revenue from increased block fees, since users are forced due to the large network activity.

turvarya

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 500

Quote from: Borisz on July 13, 2015, 06:43:00 AM

Quote from: turvarya on July 13, 2015, 06:26:42 AM

So, we don't know who is doing this stress test, so we just guess, it is the same guys, that did the other stress test, which identity we also don't know. That thinking brings us forward a lot Roll Eyes

Well, OK, I know about 1 stress test that I read:

Quote

Bitcoin brokerage CoinWallet.eu had planned the stress test starting 22 June at 13:00 GMT, to last for 100 blocks. It had sought to spend 20 BTC (around $5,000) on transactions totaling about 200MB in data.

(http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-network-survives-stress-test/)

However 100 blocks were supposed to last ~16 hours, right? All this for 20 BTC, 5000$ at the time. Now this was a few weeks ago, however the network is still under stress. Am I missing some newer news about stress tests?Or is it that they have flooded the network with so much junk transaction that it still hasn't been flushed? (unlikely)
Or is it that now everybody is "testing" the network for their own research that is causing the problem in the end?

We also don't really know, who this CoinWallet.eu-guys are. It may just be a cover, so people don't get suspicious.
My guess is, that a lot of people are "testing", so, a lot of copycats are going about, with different agendas. I am still wondering, since even if it is more than one entity, there must be some players in there, who have a lot of BTC to burn.

Borisz

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 251

Quote from: turvarya on July 13, 2015, 06:26:42 AM

So, we don't know who is doing this stress test, so we just guess, it is the same guys, that did the other stress test, which identity we also don't know. That thinking brings us forward a lot Roll Eyes

Well, OK, I know about 1 stress test that I read:

Quote

Bitcoin brokerage CoinWallet.eu had planned the stress test starting 22 June at 13:00 GMT, to last for 100 blocks. It had sought to spend 20 BTC (around $5,000) on transactions totaling about 200MB in data.

(http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-network-survives-stress-test/)

However 100 blocks were supposed to last ~16 hours, right? All this for 20 BTC, 5000$ at the time. Now this was a few weeks ago, however the network is still under stress. Am I missing some newer news about stress tests?Or is it that they have flooded the network with so much junk transaction that it still hasn't been flushed? (unlikely)
Or is it that now everybody is "testing" the network for their own research that is causing the problem in the end?

turvarya

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 500

Quote from: S4VV4S on July 13, 2015, 05:34:04 AM

Quote from: Borisz on July 13, 2015, 02:10:22 AM

You need capital and knowledge to pull such a sustained attack and/or you have to coordinate multiple groups to act at the same time.

I doubt that e.g. competing altcoins would do something similar, mainly as they probably don't have the necessary funds to do it. Also, it wouldn't do much good for them as they would know that they cannot bring down the network, in the best best case simply cripple it for the time being. Hence if they wanted to make their coin come out as a winner they would need to sustain an attack indefinitely. Which is probably not economical for them, not even to pull a pump & dump on their coin.

Established payment systems probably don't yet view bitcoin as a high threat as it has only a fraction of their business. Also, their analysts would probably also tell that the network cannot be stopped, only slowed by an ongoing, indefinite attack.

I'd say the most likely is a group trying to pinpoint or find weaknesses in the system and does a temporary force demonstration.

And I'd say it's probably the same group that was running the stress tests.
It makes sense considering their messed up schedule (running the test on different dates/times than announced).

So, we don't know who is doing this stress test, so we just guess, it is the same guys, that did the other stress test, which identity we also don't know. That thinking brings us forward a lot Roll Eyes

souspeed

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 1000

Fica Tranquilo

Governments with strict capital controls or weak currencies.

Herbert2020

legendary

Activity: 1946

Merit: 1137

from what i gathered so far i find the second option the most probable one.
there are groups of people trying to force some change in bitcoin (the larger block size) so they are doing these attacks.

S4VV4S

hero member

Activity: 1582

Merit: 502

Quote from: Borisz on July 13, 2015, 02:10:22 AM

You need capital and knowledge to pull such a sustained attack and/or you have to coordinate multiple groups to act at the same time.

I doubt that e.g. competing altcoins would do something similar, mainly as they probably don't have the necessary funds to do it. Also, it wouldn't do much good for them as they would know that they cannot bring down the network, in the best best case simply cripple it for the time being. Hence if they wanted to make their coin come out as a winner they would need to sustain an attack indefinitely. Which is probably not economical for them, not even to pull a pump & dump on their coin.

Established payment systems probably don't yet view bitcoin as a high threat as it has only a fraction of their business. Also, their analysts would probably also tell that the network cannot be stopped, only slowed by an ongoing, indefinite attack.

I'd say the most likely is a group trying to pinpoint or find weaknesses in the system and does a temporary force demonstration.

And I'd say it's probably the same group that was running the stress tests.
It makes sense considering their messed up schedule (running the test on different dates/times than announced).

Topic: Those with an incentive to attack the bitcoin network - page 3. (Read 3613 times)