Pages:
Author

Topic: We ARE under attack.. we NEED to act... - page 2. (Read 4077 times)

legendary
Activity: 1100
Merit: 1032
What sort of transaction censoring are you contemplating now?

Transactions with many small outputs could be censored outright, what constitutes a "small output" could be revised later one, or computed automatically based on transactions accepted since N blocks.
While BTC can support infinite subdivision and that may come useful in the future, that infinite subdivision serves no purpose right now, or in the next few years.

Transactions where the same output address appears multiple times could be banned as well (as they only bloat the blockchain)

Changing the fee structure rather than just raising the fee would be also a possibility, so that you pay more for larger blocks with small amounts. LTC has something like that, and there were many proposals in that direction for BTC as well.
Like the above, the notion of "small amount" could be adjusted down the road.

Finally in the spam, there are some non-spendable script outputs, these have other uses, but are using the blockchain as storage, and thus could be asked a proportionally higher fee based on byte length.
legendary
Activity: 1316
Merit: 1481
This could be a major problem: if we think of the  lower/mid average user this fee/block limit issues could be disastrous.
There should be much more awareness about how the whole BTC ecosystem works but there are only these kind of BTCers I see so far:
the enthusiasts, who just love it;
the get rich soon ones who just care about the price;
the merchants;
the first time users who come here and don't take a step forward to understand what this is all about.

Personally I think the LTC solution might be a good one and I agree that something needs to be done.

Everything is so rapid here that also some changes/adjustments/improvements need to be taken as quickly as possible.

This will show maturity and strength to the outside. And of course we all know the potential that our BTC have.

my 2 satoshis

 Wink
legendary
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1000
This thread is getting somewhere.

I really like this idea of mimicing the LTC idea.
hero member
Activity: 686
Merit: 500
Just make all wallets detect and suggest fee for fast/medium/long confirmations. Problem solved.

not a bad idea, Someone could defendly get this done fast in a plug in for electrum i know a lot of people would love it at the current state of transactions confirmation length
legendary
Activity: 1204
Merit: 1002
Gresham's Lawyer
If it currently costs a few thousand $ to clog up the blockchain, even increasing it 20 fold wouldn't stop someone with deep pockets.
A work around needs to be found, not just a simple block size increase (though that should happen too)

Indeed. A simple fee increase is not a solution, as it would be discouraging bitcoin use long before it could discourage someone with deep pockets.

What sort of transaction censoring are you contemplating now?
legendary
Activity: 1204
Merit: 1002
Gresham's Lawyer
I think one possible solution would be to have a temporary high transaction fee during times where there are a lot of transactions to be processed. Something similar to the concept of surge pricing. It's not elegant or desirable, but it could work.
This is what has always been the case, with no change to the protocol.
You can always pay a higher fee.

And yes, the feature of wallets telling you what fee to use would be a nice addition.
legendary
Activity: 1100
Merit: 1032
If it currently costs a few thousand $ to clog up the blockchain, even increasing it 20 fold wouldn't stop someone with deep pockets.
A work around needs to be found, not just a simple block size increase (though that should happen too)

Indeed. A simple fee increase is not a solution, as it would be discouraging bitcoin use long before it could discourage someone with deep pockets.
sr. member
Activity: 406
Merit: 250
The fees must go up or some measure to kill spamers.

Larger blocks does not prevent spammers.....
The higher the blocksize, the more transactions can be processed and the more expensive a spam attack is per minute.
But it is all a nominal amount of money in the grand scheme of things.
Bitcoin should be secure against government attacks, let alone someone with a few grand lying around.

If it currently costs a few thousand $ to clog up the blockchain, even increasing it 20 fold wouldn't stop someone with deep pockets.
A work around needs to be found, not just a simple block size increase (though that should happen too)

That is right. Increase the cost of spam is a better way.
tss
hero member
Activity: 742
Merit: 500
allowing more spam to be handled faster is not a solution for stopping spam.  i liked someones proposal of dropping dust transactions from the mempool once per day. 

none of my non penny transactions have had a problem with confirmation given a proper fee.  so far the only real transactions that are affected seem to be those coming from exchanges and dice sites where you aren't able to set the fee.  if the spam continues and there is no real fix i am sure the affected systems' owners will update to allow proper fees and "normal" transactions will continue just as they are now.  UNAFFECTED.
legendary
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1003
The fees must go up or some measure to kill spamers.

Larger blocks does not prevent spammers.....
The higher the blocksize, the more transactions can be processed and the more expensive a spam attack is per minute.
But it is all a nominal amount of money in the grand scheme of things.
Bitcoin should be secure against government attacks, let alone someone with a few grand lying around.

If it currently costs a few thousand $ to clog up the blockchain, even increasing it 20 fold wouldn't stop someone with deep pockets.
A work around needs to be found, not just a simple block size increase (though that should happen too)
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
The fees must go up or some measure to kill spamers.

Larger blocks does not prevent spammers.....
The higher the blocksize, the more transactions can be processed and the more expensive a spam attack is per minute.
legendary
Activity: 1988
Merit: 1012
Beyond Imagination
Someone is cashing out litecoin big time  Grin
sr. member
Activity: 406
Merit: 250
legendary
Activity: 1204
Merit: 1002
Gresham's Lawyer
The fees must go up or some measure to kill spamers.

Larger blocks does not prevent spammers.....

The fundamental premise here (that all attacks need a response) is entirely flawed.
To accept it is to surrender completely to the will of every would-be attacker that can force a response.

If you want your TX processed swiftly, raise your fee.  You can fix this yourself, it needn't be something you ask ANYONE else to handle for you.

Exchanges often have a fixed default fee that you cannot change. Implementing your suggestion would require all exchanges and Bitcoin services to update their platforms to allow customers to set their own rate of transaction fees. Ideally they should also warn if the network is under attack and suggest an appropriate fee. It would take some time to get them all to agree to update, but it's possible.

What exchange do you use that has a fixed TX fee?  Don't use that one.

For the exchange:
Any decent exchange will have the ability to set the fee, though it may be an "advanced" option.
If they do not do this, they have the burden themselves as part of the service to include an appropriate fee.

Badly coded exchanges fixing poor interfaces should happen long before protocol changes.

This is not the crisis you are thinking it is.
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1012
I hate litecoin to be honest, but in this case i believe Coblee is correct. 23 000 of unconfirmed transactions, and 42382.330078125 (KB) ..
blockchain.info freezes just by me thinking of opening it and so on..

... use this before send bitcoins ...

http://bitcoinexchangerate.org/fees


Actual fees to emit in 10 min : 0.32 mBTC
sr. member
Activity: 342
Merit: 250
The fees must go up or some measure to kill spamers.

Larger blocks does not prevent spammers.....

The fundamental premise here (that all attacks need a response) is entirely flawed.
To accept it is to surrender completely to the will of every would-be attacker that can force a response.

If you want your TX processed swiftly, raise your fee.  You can fix this yourself, it needn't be something you ask ANYONE else to handle for you.

Exchanges often have a fixed default fee that you cannot change. Implementing your suggestion would require all exchanges and Bitcoin services to update their platforms to allow customers to set their own rate of transaction fees. Ideally they should also warn if the network is under attack and suggest an appropriate fee. It would take some time to get them all to agree to update, but it's possible.
sr. member
Activity: 326
Merit: 250
Just make all wallets detect and suggest fee for fast/medium/long confirmations. Problem solved.
legendary
Activity: 1204
Merit: 1002
Gresham's Lawyer
I don't think spammers are a problem,if there are larger blocks,what does spammers matter?

It will fill my hard disk faster and sooner.

Another issue with spam is the UXTO set, which can grow quite large and create problems of its own.
sr. member
Activity: 406
Merit: 250
I don't think spammers are a problem,if there are larger blocks,what does spammers matter?

It will fill my hard disk faster and sooner.
legendary
Activity: 1204
Merit: 1002
Gresham's Lawyer
The fees must go up or some measure to kill spamers.

Larger blocks does not prevent spammers.....

The fundamental premise here (that all attacks need a response) is entirely flawed.
To accept it is to surrender completely to the will of every would-be attacker that can force a response.

If you want your TX processed swiftly, raise your fee.  You can fix this yourself, it needn't be something you ask ANYONE else to handle for you.
Pages:
Jump to: