[XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency - page 1533.

binaryFate

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1012

Still wild and free

Quote from: smooth on August 25, 2014, 09:12:19 AM

We will be adjusting tx fees to be per-kb like most other coins. Small or typical transactions will cost some small fraction of what large transactions will cost.

Please consider going directly for a "pure" fees per-kb, instead of the awkward way bitcoin is still designed nowadays (bitcoin core at least, but all clients follow it), which is floor(tx_size_in_bytes / 1000) * base_fee. That is, the fee is the same for a transaction of 1001 bytes and one of 1999 bytes (0.0001 btc), but different for one of 2001 bytes (0.0002 btc). I always found it stupid considering the miners if acting rationally will only consider the pure fees per-kb. (it's all that matters for them).

No need to go the bitcoin way, especially when btc design is bad.

Sidenote: I found this a bit similar to the emission curve of btc, with the reward abruptly divided by 2 from times to times. I only see drawbacks to this compared to the curve of Monero with the smooth decrease, seeking the same fundamental goal but just done properly.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: AlexGR on August 25, 2014, 08:53:36 AM

If the currency itself is vulnerable to such attacks, then it creates a problem of centralization-response where, for example, fees must be changed every now and then to deal with an attack. This creates the perception that the currency needs babysitting to operate. And high fees also defeat the purpose of the currency itself, as it becomes unusable with too high fees.

A more useful fix is coming that won't require babysitting against this form of attack in the future. At the same time we have always been clear that we consider the coin to be alpha-quality and it will definitely require continued active and attentive development for some time to come. There may well be other attacks that will require a response until the coin is made more robust. Over it will indeed become more robust, but not immediately.

Prior to this attack you could send 24 KB of tx data for roughly 0.01 USD. That is much too low given the impact of these sorts of large transactions on the blockchain size. But most transactions are not 24 KB. The average seems to be something like 2.5 KB.

We will be adjusting tx fees to be per-kb like most other coins. Small or typical transactions will cost some small fraction of what large transactions will cost.

AlexGR

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1049

Quote from: Its About Sharing on August 25, 2014, 07:37:14 AM

Quote from: fluffypony on August 24, 2014, 07:27:16 PM

The ramp up to 0.1 XMR fees stopped the attacker dead in their tracks, and gives us a bit of time to regroup and finalise the changes we were making that will permanently prevent this in future.

Thanks for the detailed update fluffypony.
I have a general question that would seem to apply to all alts, but perhaps more to XMR.

What if there is an attacker (e.g. bank, large institution or even State) with relatively limitless pockets? It seems to me, there is a bell curve of optimal disruption they can cause, then beyond that, their buying is going to raise the price too much (and even then that might not be so bad). I'm talking worst case scenarios here and again, it would apply to all coins.

From a game theory perspective, the game can be played in a number of unorthodox ways. Even 0.1 XMR is nothing for a determined attacker. For if he shows that he doesn't care about the fee as he has "tons of monero to spend", then he gets to achieve his aim by acting corrosively to confidence. Investors must be able to see that the devs are on top of the situation and if countermeasures don't work it's like "oh oh, these attackers will actually destroy monero"... so you can have an attacker, whether with the intent to destroy monero or to benefit financially, where he might sell before the attack, start the attack, wait for the price to lower due to lost confidence and then buy back. He can either win financially, win in terms of eroding trust (if he is from a competing coin), or win in terms of making Monero more centralized than it needs to be. If the currency itself is vulnerable to such attacks, then it creates a problem of centralization-response where, for example, fees must be changed every now and then to deal with an attack. This creates the perception that the currency needs babysitting to operate. And high fees also defeat the purpose of the currency itself, as it becomes unusable with too high fees.

drawingthesun

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1015

Quote from: sgi02 on August 25, 2014, 08:34:56 AM

I've updated to the latest bitmonerod and simplewallet and now when I try to exit the bitmonerod (with the exit command) it just hangs and I have to manually close the window causing me to have to resync every time I reopen. I deleted the poolstate and p2p files, and the issue still persists. I'm running Windows 64-Bit, any workarounds for this? Thanks!

Can you use the save command? If so use that before force exiting.

sgi02

sr. member

Activity: 542

Merit: 250

I've updated to the latest bitmonerod and simplewallet and now when I try to exit the bitmonerod (with the exit command) it just hangs and I have to manually close the window causing me to have to resync every time I reopen. I deleted the poolstate and p2p files, and the issue still persists. I'm running Windows 64-Bit, any workarounds for this? Thanks!

e-coinomist

legendary

Activity: 2380

Merit: 1085

Money often costs too much.

Quote from: sleepdog on August 25, 2014, 07:50:23 AM

It's not exactly double, true. As of an hour ago mine is 2.15 GB (2,315,602,066 bytes). No doubt yours is the same. I'm asking if this is normal seeing as the graph provided by the devs shows a size of roughly 1 GB.

It is temporarily twice the size in the moment you stop the daemon, and it stores blockchain in a temporary file.

Quote from: Its About Sharing on August 25, 2014, 07:37:14 AM

What if there is an attacker (e.g. bank, large institution or even State) with relatively limitless pockets? It seems to me, there is a bell curve of optimal disruption they can cause, then beyond that, their buying is going to raise the price too much (and even then that might not be so bad). I'm talking worst case scenarios here and again,...

Strange, how the Bad Guy faces have changed. But maybe there wasn't only an attack, but more use of the network? Remember that some mining pools payout in 0.1 XMR slices. So that got perfectly bummed by raising transfer fees onto exactly the same amount!

fluffypony

donator

Activity: 1274

Merit: 1060

GetMonero.org / MyMonero.com

Quote from: Its About Sharing on August 25, 2014, 07:37:14 AM

Quote from: fluffypony on August 24, 2014, 07:27:16 PM

The ramp up to 0.1 XMR fees stopped the attacker dead in their tracks, and gives us a bit of time to regroup and finalise the changes we were making that will permanently prevent this in future.

Thanks for the detailed update fluffypony.
I have a general question that would seem to apply to all alts, but perhaps more to XMR.

What if there is an attacker (e.g. bank, large institution or even State) with relatively limitless pockets? It seems to me, there is a bell curve of optimal disruption they can cause, then beyond that, their buying is going to raise the price too much (and even then that might not be so bad). I'm talking worst case scenarios here and again, it would apply to all coins. I just think it is something, of course, we need to watch out for especially, due to the larger blockchain, at least at this time. I understand no coin can perhaps stop a full on attack, due to their design, at least at this time, but it would still be nice to have an understanding of the ramifications (which in part, you have just given us - I'm just talking about amplitudes greater in the attack vector.)

Related, if BTC, Monero, etc. do experience such attacks in the future, is there a way to just prune the attack transactions out of the blockchain? Or another solution?

Thanks in advance,
IAS

ps - Of course I am a holder of Monero. Grin

It's been done before, even recently with Bitcoin (see the 1Enjoy 1Sochi attack last year). A highly motivated, highly skilled attacker with near limitless resources would benefit far more by combining market manipulation with an organised disinformation / smear campaign. At the moment, those who seek to disrupt little ol' Monero are able to do the latter, but lack the resources to do the former. The only thing you can hope for in future is that market manipulation, controlling more hashrate than half the network, spam attacks, and attempted DoS attacks become so expensive that even our proverbial attacker chooses to walk away from those options. We can't prevent the disinformation / smear campaign, but given how poorly it's going for certain-other-parties right now I don't suspect it to be terribly successful in the future;)

fluffypony

donator

Activity: 1274

Merit: 1060

GetMonero.org / MyMonero.com

Quote from: sleepdog on August 25, 2014, 07:50:23 AM

Quote from: wedgy2k on August 25, 2014, 07:01:03 AM

Quote from: sleepdog on August 25, 2014, 06:24:41 AM

My blockchain.bin is double the size indicated by your graph (2.15GB), any idea why this might be?
Is there any connection here to why the daemon uses 3.5GB memory? I've had to upgrade my PC from 4 - 6GB so it's usable when the daemon is running.

Mine is 2.31 GB and not double, bitmonero v0.8.8.2 (OSX 10.9.4)

(just for reference)

It's not exactly double, true. As of an hour ago mine is 2.15 GB (2,315,602,066 bytes). No doubt yours is the same. I'm asking if this is normal seeing as the graph provided by the devs shows a size of roughly 1 GB.

At the moment it's not stored efficiently - the key image set and the utxoset are both duplicated separately from the blockchain. This will be more efficiently stored in the database:)

sammy007

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1003

Quote from: Its About Sharing on August 25, 2014, 07:37:14 AM

Quote from: fluffypony on August 24, 2014, 07:27:16 PM

The ramp up to 0.1 XMR fees stopped the attacker dead in their tracks, and gives us a bit of time to regroup and finalise the changes we were making that will permanently prevent this in future.

Thanks for the detailed update fluffypony.
I have a general question that would seem to apply to all alts, but perhaps more to XMR.

What if there is an attacker (e.g. bank, large institution or even State) with relatively limitless pockets? It seems to me, there is a bell curve of optimal disruption they can cause, then beyond that, their buying is going to raise the price too much (and even then that might not be so bad). I'm talking worst case scenarios here and again, it would apply to all coins. I just think it is something, of course, we need to watch out for especially, due to the larger blockchain, at least at this time. I understand no coin can perhaps stop a full on attack, due to their design, at least at this time, but it would still be nice to have an understanding of the ramifications (which in part, you have just given us - I'm just talking about amplitudes greater in the attack vector.)

Related, if BTC, Monero, etc. do experience such attacks in the future, is there a way to just prune the attack transactions out of the blockchain? Or another solution?

Thanks in advance,
IAS

ps - Of course I am a holder of Monero. Grin

In future, tx fee will depend on tx size. Heavy tx = expensive transfer. Bank, institution? Why big holder will attack their own funds?

sleepdog

full member

Activity: 183

Merit: 100

Quote from: wedgy2k on August 25, 2014, 07:01:03 AM

Quote from: sleepdog on August 25, 2014, 06:24:41 AM

My blockchain.bin is double the size indicated by your graph (2.15GB), any idea why this might be?
Is there any connection here to why the daemon uses 3.5GB memory? I've had to upgrade my PC from 4 - 6GB so it's usable when the daemon is running.

Mine is 2.31 GB and not double, bitmonero v0.8.8.2 (OSX 10.9.4)

(just for reference)

It's not exactly double, true. As of an hour ago mine is 2.15 GB (2,315,602,066 bytes). No doubt yours is the same. I'm asking if this is normal seeing as the graph provided by the devs shows a size of roughly 1 GB.

Its About Sharing

legendary

Activity: 1442

Merit: 1000

Antifragile

Quote from: fluffypony on August 24, 2014, 07:27:16 PM

The ramp up to 0.1 XMR fees stopped the attacker dead in their tracks, and gives us a bit of time to regroup and finalise the changes we were making that will permanently prevent this in future.

Thanks for the detailed update fluffypony.
I have a general question that would seem to apply to all alts, but perhaps more to XMR.

What if there is an attacker (e.g. bank, large institution or even State) with relatively limitless pockets? It seems to me, there is a bell curve of optimal disruption they can cause, then beyond that, their buying is going to raise the price too much (and even then that might not be so bad). I'm talking worst case scenarios here and again, it would apply to all coins. I just think it is something, of course, we need to watch out for especially, due to the larger blockchain, at least at this time. I understand no coin can perhaps stop a full on attack, due to their design, at least at this time, but it would still be nice to have an understanding of the ramifications (which in part, you have just given us - I'm just talking about amplitudes greater in the attack vector.)

Related, if BTC, Monero, etc. do experience such attacks in the future, is there a way to just prune the attack transactions out of the blockchain? Or another solution?

Thanks in advance,
IAS

ps - Of course I am a holder of Monero. Grin

Miller0

newbie

Activity: 35

Merit: 0

Quote from: wedgy2k on August 25, 2014, 07:01:03 AM

Quote from: sleepdog on August 25, 2014, 06:24:41 AM

My blockchain.bin is double the size indicated by your graph (2.15GB), any idea why this might be?
Is there any connection here to why the daemon uses 3.5GB memory? I've had to upgrade my PC from 4 - 6GB so it's usable when the daemon is running.

Mine is 2.31 GB and not double, bitmonero v0.8.8.2 (OSX 10.9.4)

(just for reference)

THX

wedgy2k

sr. member

Activity: 329

Merit: 251

Quote from: sleepdog on August 25, 2014, 06:24:41 AM

My blockchain.bin is double the size indicated by your graph (2.15GB), any idea why this might be?
Is there any connection here to why the daemon uses 3.5GB memory? I've had to upgrade my PC from 4 - 6GB so it's usable when the daemon is running.

Mine is 2.31 GB and not double, bitmonero v0.8.8.2 (OSX 10.9.4)

(just for reference)

sleepdog

full member

Activity: 183

Merit: 100

Quote from: zarton on August 25, 2014, 06:32:33 AM

The windows and linux systems have virtual memory so if you only have 4 gb the system takes hard disk space to use as memory ram. Its not mandatory upgrade the ram to keep loaded the monero blockchain.

It's not mandatory, but by my experience it is necessary to retain a responsive system.

zarton

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

The windows and linux systems have virtual memory so if you only have 4 gb the system takes hard disk space to use as memory ram. Its not mandatory upgrade the ram to keep loaded the monero blockchain.

sleepdog

full member

Activity: 183

Merit: 100

Quote from: fluffypony on August 24, 2014, 07:27:16 PM

2014/08/24 Monero Blockchain Spam Attack - Post Mortem

Blockchain growth over August was 6.684mb per day. Because of the attack, blockchain growth over the past two days was 20.326mb (23rd) and 15.05mb (24th). This is a net effect of 13.642mb extra + 8.366mb extra = 22mb more than average over the period.

My blockchain.bin is double the size indicated by your graph (2.15GB), any idea why this might be?
Is there any connection here to why the daemon uses 3.5GB memory? I've had to upgrade my PC from 4 - 6GB so it's usable when the daemon is running.

mmortal03

legendary

Activity: 1762

Merit: 1011

Quote from: primer- on August 24, 2014, 08:49:54 PM

Quote from: statdude on August 24, 2014, 08:27:02 PM

Quote from: cAPSLOCK on August 24, 2014, 05:24:08 PM

Quote from: statdude on August 24, 2014, 12:47:13 PM

Update:
Now 59 entries on the list.

Am I correct that this shows the median monero holder on your list currently holds ~20k USD worth of Monero?

Update:

Count 89
Average 10,206
Median 3500

Survey Link:

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/10FFq_viVaY_THsToPNEwgTxrBSGVxW1EzeYPHX_2nuQ/viewform?usp=send_form

Idiot.

The mean is ~$19.4k now, and the median is ~$6.7k.

cAPSLOCK

legendary

Activity: 3766

Merit: 5146

Note the unconventional cAPITALIZATION!

Quote from: primer- on August 24, 2014, 08:49:54 PM

Idiot.

There are probably far less embarrassing ways to introduce yourself, but I suppose if accuracy is your thing then who am I to judge.

exciter0

member

Activity: 115

Merit: 10

Quote from: fluffypony on August 24, 2014, 07:27:16 PM

2014/08/24 Monero Blockchain Spam Attack - Post Mortem

Everyone, if you appreciate how the A-Team devs handled this situation as much as I do, please consider sending a small donation their way: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/monero-community-hall-of-fame-700400 Kiss