Bitcoin Forum

hey all come on...lets discuss someone attacked on bitcoin block by making lot of transaction with lowest transaction fee.
if block is always full like this then bitcoin transaction will not conform cause of no space on block....so what is our opinion with this happens?

Hardly an attack. Pay a higher fee than those unconfirmed low-fee transactions and you're fine.

You know you have a shitty system when using it is called an attack.  :D

so its my responsibility to pay higher fees when there are lot of transaction in pending and block is full. do you really think its our responsibility?
i think in this case we should change the cryotocurrency coin.

It would have been done if no downsides would be for doing it.

The miners simply will accept the transactions that pay them the best. So the higher the fees the more the spammer have to pay too.

But I read that the attack stopped for now.

what is the minimum transaction fees to get the transaction clear soon, so that we can go for higher then the minimum fees

https://bitcoinfees.21.co/ currently is suggesting a fee of 60 satoshis/byte.

---

You're not forced to use bitcoin, there are just enough altcoins out for you to find the one you like.

You are free to do that if you want.

I see a huge problems with confirmations via blockchain.info nodes. They stuck for hours with normal fees. It's strange that there's no info on their twitter.
Other nodes relays transactions with 0.0001 btc fee smoothly.

I paid the highest fee I've ever paid to get a transaction through.  This was almost 12 hours ago.  It's sitting there pending, along with the minimum fee and recommended fee transactions I've done since two days ago.

Did you maybe include spare coins that were left in an adress you sent before? I have read that this will be a problem because the spare coins are not confirmed because the first transaction is not confirmed. So another transaction basing on that will only get confirmations when the first transaction gets one.

Though Iam not fully sure if I understood correctly.

We'd have to see the transaction in order to say anything about that, maybe it's an unconfirmed input, maybe the transaction size is just quite high, there are alot of options which could prevent a transaction from being included in a block despite paying a "highest fee [you've] ever paid".

Lutpin



Yes. In fact I once was really surprised to find out how big of a fee electrum can calculate only because you have alot of inputs in the sending address.

---

Intermediary


The more transactions you received in the bitcoin address you sent from the higher your fee would be. It's best to let your wallet calculate it for you.

Yes, I've heard that BC.i is not relaying transactions very well. Dunno if this is/was related to the spam attack. Probably some of the recent reports of stuck transactions were due to this, though there were definitely spam transactions as well.

They did something similar during the spam attack. I think its just their servers that cant handle the load.

@Intermediary: I hope you didnt pay a fee high than the 777 satoshi per byte TX I wrote you by hand. ;)

I think it's not your responsibility, but if you want your transactions take a short time, then pay higher fee.

It's not that difficult, if you have enough funds to sustain a continued spam attack. You just fill up these blocks with transactions with low fees and if someone else, who does not know about this attack, send a transactions with low fees too, it will have to wait in the queue with the backlog of others who did the same thing. For obvious reasons miners will process the blocks with the higher fees first and transactions with lower fees last. The correct thing to do, would be for you to send a transaction with higher fees, in times when spam attacks are done, to make sure your transaction gets prioritized. 

It's possible because an artificially restriction in the bitcoin protocol. Initially implemented to prevent spam, though it never served that purpose, it now is held up by some bitcoiners as an important groundstone of the bitcoin protocol that has to be kept in all cases. In the meanwhile the protocol suffers suffocation and bitcoiners get annoyed because transactions don't get confirmations.

It's the current "raise 1MB blocksize limit" discussion that is dividing the whole bitcoin community.

It did serve that purpose. Without it the current blockchain would likely be much larger.

When did it serve that purpose? Spam happened all the time with spam transactions over blockchain.info to show up spammy website url's and such. But the 1MB Limit was never met. It only was met now when the blocks are nearly full, in fact they are full on certain hours nearly all the time now.

But before this discussion there was no real spam that was blocked by the 1MB limit. Or was there?

The spam was blocked, there used to be 750 KB limit.

Yes some miners and pools used to run the 750kb limit and until very recently a few did.  Yet until recently that limit was rarely if ever met so how could it prevent spam.  BTW what is spam?  Considering your definition is most likely different than mine, please answer in a way that could be understood by the censorship resistant btc protocol.

The 750KB limit was the standard soft limit implemented in the core wallet. That limit was only met shortly before the 1MB blocksize increase discussion came up. And it was simply changed by the miners because 1MB blocks were possible all the time.

But I did not hear about spam being blocked because of the 1mb block restriction (includin 750kB soft limit) before the blocks were nearly full.

I would hardly call that an attack. Nevertheless, I hope nothing majorly bad happens.
Just pay a higher fee and you're basically good to go.

It is an attack since the sole purpose is not to misuse the chain but the attack itself.

Well, we don't need attacks anymore to have trouble getting transactions confirmed. There are hours a day where the blocks are full all the time nearly. Even with high fee it takes a couple of blocks then. And imagine what will happen if everyone pays high fees. Right... we would have the same situation. Unconfirming transactions, only all transactions getting included and that are waiting have way higher fees. No, higher fees are no solution at all. It is survival of the fittest only. And a payment network that plays the survival of the fittest game is surely a payment network that won't survive in the survival of the fittest against cheaper alternatives.

Well, we are not there yet. But the result is clear. Not linearly rising fees, exponentially rising fees is what has to come when nothing happens like bigger blocks or segwit implemented with a timeframe of making an effect that is considerable.

could it be that I have this problem?

I had send 0.1 btc from my wallet to my bittrex account but didn't arrive there also not in the pending list. But it had transaction details and 0.1 btc was from my balance.
Then I loaded another copy of my wallet.dat and let it sync and the transaction was gone ??? I also had my old balance.. so I send another 0.1 to bittrex and this time it did came in the pending list of bittrex.
It was taking so long(still pending) that I tried sending 1 btc, that was confirmed pretty quick so immediately I send another 4 btc but that is still pending since 5+ hours. At first the transaction details said how may nodes its been send to but now is says only 0 confirmations? so now both of my transactions only say 0 confirmations.

I paid the recommended fee.

is this normal since the full blocks? Or did something went wrong with my first transaction that vanished?

Thanks

There should have been space in a block for you in 5 hours.
Are you sure the fee was correct?

You need to post tx details, if you want people to look.


bamsterdam,  I don't think that is enough fee to be considered standard.  - v v v -

just now my 0.1btc has two confirmations ;D

So I think I just have to be patient for a little longer.

I paid 1847 satoshis for my 3.93 btc went automatically