Topic: Why Komodo Group-Signed Transactions are Not Spam (Read 2437 times)

with the spike in mempool, there are no vins (usable utxo) that can be used. The type of usable utxo is constrained to reduce the space needed for each tx

but if transactions are stuck, then notarizations get stuck too. they are not even generated into the mempool

Thanks for your replies!

I'm slightly confused about this part.

Apologies, I didn't realized people enjoyed JJG style sesquipedalian loquaciousness and summarized "sudden massive increases in the rate of transactions relayed to the Bitcoin network, creating a backlog which takes considerable time to clear, especially when the rate is again increased multiple times during the process of clearing the previously existing backlog" into "spikes" for both brevity's sake along with the fact that the person I was having the discussion with had previously called it that earlier in our conversation and it would be clear that both he and I understood what we were talking about. Not to mention the fact that I included the picture (worth 1000 words last time I checked the exchange rate).

But, thanks so much for clearing that up for us!

In addition to that, we have been in testnet for over 3 months then mainnet for a month. If we were the cause then you would see a floor in the memory pool numbers for that duration, which you cant.

what is happening is that during the spikes komodo transactions are reduced due to nodes running out of usable utxo.

and the max rate is about 100 per day, can never be much more than that
so there is no way it is adding tens of thousands of tx in hours

komodo is a responsible user of the bitcoin blockchain and we can taken great efforts to minimize the blockchain usage.

Your description of the green circles as spikes would be more accurate if they didn't occupy more than half the horizontal axis in your figure.

This is indeed one of our goals, to give the Bitcoin protection to other altcoins too!

Instead of using Bitcoin blockchain (like we do) they can use Komodo blockchain, and achieve the same result but a lot cheaper. This further increases the utility of Bitcoin network and its hashing power.

Altcoins benefit, bitcoin plays a bigger role... the whole crypto benefits.

Fair enough.

I guess the thing on everyone's mind (or at least my mind) here is what is happening during the times outlined with the green circles.



From what has been stated in this thread from the people with knowledge of Komodo, is that Komodo transactions aren't causing the spikes in the green circles. Can you say with confidence that Komodo transactions are happening with the same frequency during the times circled in red as the times circled in green? If so, then I'd say the title of this thread is appropriate.

Obviously, something is happening during these massive spikes and I think most people involved with Bitcoin would like to know what it is (hence this thread). Many people claim it's simply "normal use" but I'm just not buying that.

Komodo pays 0.03120000 BTC for notary services a day? Thirty bucks. Well in comparison to other altcoin's needs for keeping their blockchain save from tampering that is a true bargain.
Could cause trouble if some other 200~300 altcoins discover the possibility. At that point in time maybe a "NotaryCoin" as an intermediate between the blockchain and all alts with notary demands would make sense. Oh, wait! There allready is NameCoin.

Just got that feeling NameCoin would have been the better choice for your needs.

Dont know if this thread belongs into the politics or into the altcoin sections.

Good point. rephrase my usage of "spam attack" to "time period where the mempool has a lot of unconfirmed transactions"

I doubt whoever is responsible for the recent spike in transactions has taken the effort that we have to reduce the impact of dPoW transactions, and in fact they could well have designed their transactions to use up as much of the mempool as possible.

Wait. In the same post where you are defending your transactions from being labeled as spam, you label other transactions spam and mention an attack. I'm not sure if I follow the logic. Could you elaborate?

I'm genuinely trying to understand the entire situation.

I am very curious to know what rules are being abused.

I designed the dPoW notarization tx to minimize the size on the blockchain. If multisig could even have been used for an Mof64 tx, it would be 2 to 3 times larger.

i saw one tx that was a silly 50 utxo input to a 50 utxo output which was caused by this very spam attack that prevented funds from arriving to that wallet in time, so it had to use all the utxo to fund the inputs. If blocks are normal, then it would have been a single input (which was in transit) and 50 outputs. These 50 outputs use the fully dereferenced pay to pubkey script so it does not have to include the pubkey in the vin script that spends it. That saves the 20 bytes of rmd160 hash that otherwise would be there, not to mention the few extra bytes from script opcodes.

We are paying about 25 sats per byte to not interfere with the normal wallet default of 50 sats, so it is running at a lower priority and not pricing out other transations. It sounds like you would prefer we pay higher prices, which would fractionally price other transactions out. We just might have to if the current spam attack is a permanent state of affairs.

It sounds to me that you consider any usage of bitcoin that isnt officially sanctioned by the QT wallet to be an abuse. Do I have that right?

I followed the protocol. I designed the minimal space using solution that achieves Mof64 functionality. If that is abuse, then it seems to me any usage of bitcoin is abuse unless the central transaction approval committee officially provides a license to utilize such transactions.

Who is on this committee?

Can you please provide where in the white paper abuse is defined?

next time try reading the comment first and then come up with a better answer instead of just saying something to have said it.
I have been careful about my choice of words. I clearly said the rules are being abused, if you don't know what abuse means check a dictionary, it doesn't mean illegitimate.

argument with you guys is pointless, I am sorry I even tried!

I'll check it out.


Of course, if there is conflict, there will be pain. It could be temporary or project ending.


So the question becomes, does Bitcoin obtain it's value from attempting to be a jack of all trades, master of none, or a specialized tool which does very few things very well? I'm sure there are many opinions on this, but in my experience, tools that try to do too many things end up doing none of them well. Due to the variance in block times, I would say that time sensitive transactions are not one of Bitcoin's strengths, so focusing those while ignoring other aspects would be like cutting off the nose to spite the face. As I type this, it's been about 50 minutes since the last block.

1)  Append-Only Data Set

https://github.com/SuperNETorg/iguana/releases


This is our beta wallet that does exactly what you are talking about for the Bitcoin blockchain   in its current state it is a little buggy however a much improved version will be released soon, most likely within the week.


2) The economic majority are caught in a bind.  If they disagree with the miners logically they will try to get out of Bitcoin  and either back into fiat or alt coins.   This accordingly will drive down the price as there is less demand  thus hurting their investment.   As most holder of Bitcoin do so as a store of value   to stop using the network out of defiance  hurts their own investment  especially if they are not in the first wave of defectors.

3)  The right to fork.   Nothing wrong with forking code and building a community around it.  However  this does mean that Bitcoin would be no more if users were so unhappy they decided to do thing their way.

4)  There are many ways to conduct transactions that circumvent the current block time limitation,  however the original discussion was on the diminishing of utility,  this was an example of the diminishing of the utility of time-sensitive transactions.

OK. Full nodes have to keep a full copy regardless. Unless you've figured out a way where they do not, yet remain full nodes.


The economic majority can render a bitcoin worthless if they disagree with choices the miners make. I'm not sure how many miners will continue mining worthless tokens.


If the miners decide to use their hash rate in a way which the users disagree with, the users will change the mining algorithm and the miners will be holding a lot of expensive paperweights.


Yah, a global decentralized network where every full node has to keep a complete record of every transaction in it's history is simply a poor choice to use as a daily transaction currency. Ever hear of a gift card (purchased and reloaded with Bitcoin)? Credit cards (where you pay the monthly payment with Bitcoin)? Layers built on top of the Bitcoin network? If you use your imagination, it's amazing what you can come up with to avoid putting mundane daily transactions on the block chain.

Every transaction does not need to be censorship-proof in a world where censorship-proof transactions exist.

if you look at the first transaction on the screen   in the link that i posted you will see that address

1E2ac2gxeFR2ir1H3vqETTperWkiXkwy99

Yes I am aware that the blockchain will grow faster with bigger blocks and much faster with much bigger blocks.   That's why I proposed an alternative method of storing and syncing the data.

The economic majority has no voting power in regards to changes to the chain  it is entirely in the hands of the miners.    I think it is quite obvious that they will not be obsoleted completely because as you have stated,   there isn't enough of a market for big players to get involved.  


And for your last comment:  That a blockchain based business that builds its business model on an assumption that its transaction will be included in the next block every time should rethink their business model.

That means that every brick and mortar location that accepts bitcoin as a payment should quit doing so and entirely rely on fiat for transactions to be done at a reasonable speed.   10 minutes is already well pushing the limit for time to process a transaction especially for day to day purchases.

i don't know what that address that "polycryptoblog" gave is, i don't even have that in my list.

but here (1E2ac2gxeFR2ir1H3vqETTperWkiXkwy99) is only one of the addresses that i included in my topic that created all this Komodo spam in this board trying to justify their actions.

and here is an example transaction that led me to call these as "spam"
https://blockchain.info/tx/1148de03991e0bf17e2846e7eb9373f7ae280ca07349f637052a6874c5b2eb5c?show_adv=true