Bitcoin Forum

Spam attack causes another 60k fake pump in unconfirmed transactions to keep pumping whatever trash narrative the attacker wants to push.

Meanwhile bad miners keep blocking progress (segwit + LN, in order to allow for mainstream bitcoin usage).

Sad!!

Are the bad miners handling only those transactions with high fees?

spam or not, raise the blocksize dummy.  That's the only option.

june/july 2016 mempool bump = blockstream wanting to cause drama to make CSV look like its needed

october 2016+ mempool longer bump = blockstream wanting to cause drama to make segwit look like its needed

april 2017+ mempool bump = blockstream wanting to cause drama to make UASF look like its needed

all mempool drama occurs when blockstream need to make people react and get frustrated that old code doesnt work.

..

meanwhile other implementations with no deadlines no threats no mallice no Nuke pool blackmails, simply plod along and have no reason to cause mempool bloat at specific times.

the specific timing of the mempool bloat is very revealing

blocksize increase without segwit is stupid dummy

oh yeah? and why is that?

unless you have read the code for segwit FULLY. and understand how it functions FULLY. and run scenarios. without just "i trust blockstream". then please spend more time learning and less time with empty arguments/insults to people.

you would laugh at yourself if you actually went and looked passed the 20 second reddit sales pitches and really had a critical look at the code.

I would want to say yes, and chances are, yes they are, but for right now I'll give them a bit more respect and say they're just confirming whatever the blockchain gives them, even though we both know that's probably not true.

High fees give it a higher likelihood to be confirmed for obvious reasons, so take that as you may.

Don't know hidden motivation all those attackers/miners have to block segwit and LN. This debate has been really bullshit this days, this spam attacks is causing lots of loss for bitcoin users in fee and time.

I sent during that time and it took literally 5 - 6 hours to complete a 0.005btc send.
That was so bad for the blockchain and it was with a 0.0006btc transaction fee.
Was expecting it within the hour at the very least. But that was unacceptable at any rate.

Boom!.... enter the BU pumpers and spoils a good discussion again.  ::) ...... Bitcoin being pseudo anonymous, makes things difficult for people

to pinpoint who are behind these attacks. We might even have someone without "hidden" agendas doing this. There have been companies doing

tests on the Blockchain for other projects not related to the BU vs BTC Core fight and these tests were causing spam.  :P

I think that Gregory Maxwell (Blockstream CTO) opposes BIP 148. You should probably do your research before you start throwing shit around.

BU pumpers. funny part is im a dynamic bitcoin from DIVERSE (multibrand) nodes.
(true decentralisation)

so dont throw me into the BU or core or any other camp. my mindset is about the 120+ years of bitcoin not the temporary price drama or the temporary mempool attacks or the temporary dev teams. i care about things which are restraining bitcoins LONGTERM sustainability

once you get passed the band camp mindset and care about the bitcoin network and the long term view. you start to be critical abot all these one time gestures and changes that do harm, and care less about kissing ass

i know gmax says he doesnt like it but...
the USAF hat wearing advocate samson mow is now as of 2 days ago a blockstream employee. so i feel its gmax saying he doesnt like it so people stop attacking him personally while (his company) blockstream push it through with samson mow taking the heat.

EG hire a hitman so you can still get someone killed but blame it on someone else for pulling the trigger

I still cannot understand why everybody things this is a fake pump of transactions.
Maybe im not thinking correctly right now, but 50k+ unconfirmed transactions have happened many times before, during the big traffic on blockchain, so why would it be spam right now?
We can see more people getting interested about bitcoin , and cryptocurrency subject overall, so it is obvious that new people are coming to our crypto world.

I understand the whole situation where BC/BU miners are trying to fight each other, and I understand that miners may have bigger profits when the blockchain is stuffed with transactions, but trafficing whole web for that purpose? Im not sure about that, maybe someone can explain that to me, please?

nah.... you're wrong on this one i think.

I have no idea why they hired that clown, but he has no influence.  Everyone listens to Gmax.  If Gmax kiboshed it, its dead.  Anyway we all know UASF would never work.  They are just trying anything they can, throwing spaghetti and the wall and they have nothing to lose.  They just gain more stalling.  

Isn't this always happening. Whenever I check, there are 60k+ transactions pending and I did not find any difficulty in getting my three transactions confirmed with 50 sats/byte. They all got confirmed within 30 minutes. Now the situation is before than earlier when even transactions with high fee were stuck for hours in the network.

so thats about 15-20 cents for a typical tx. but sometimes people pay more.
https://twitter.com/nikzh/status/852852990373498880

average is $1.

I think the miners have enough money, don't you?  They have their 12.5 BTC/block.

Lets go back to 1 penny transactions by getting big blocks.

So you fancy living to 120+ years. In an old people home trading BTC or chilling out enjoying your retirement when 1 BTC = $1m+. Agree with the long-term outlook which is more important than the current fiasco. How would you solve the current dilemma for the next two years, in order to allow a long-term plan to debated in a mature manner?

Just imagine a criminal gang - mafia for example - loses a lot of money due to the developers mucking around. I would not be surprised if your sentence become prophetic.

There's no trash narrative to this, if someone is spamming the network, the only narrative he wants to come across is that we need to scale. If this is a good way to have the message go across or not, that's questionable, and a different issue.


Either that or fancy having our descendants still using Bitcoin...

This is getting crazy, I believe there is a set of mafia in the space trying to have their way using this spam attack, 60 unconfirmed transaction. I believe these people will lose this battle at the end because Bitcoin belongs to the USERS

Another stats one should be aware of. The number of transaction alone isn't important. The amount of mb the mempool is fascinating to watch. Last week or so i had around 30k transactions but 85mb.

a version with all the bells and whistle.
this means all the new keypair types blockstream want (still opt-in voluntary)
but because its a proper node and pool consensus..
1merkle block (everyone sees and handles the same data..)(non of this 1mb base 4 weight crap)
just a single block limit that is dynamic based on non mining node capability..

the non mining node
consensus.h (adjusts over time dependant on speed test averages) EG 8mb block limit
policy.h user variable amount (dynamically variable) EG 1mb-> consensus.h
useragent displays these amount to allow a network over view of whats possible

that way it doesnt go over the top out of control straight to 8mb and stays within reasonable tolerances of what nodes can handle/prefer
EG 75% of nodes show c:8mb p:2mb+, so pools only go upto 2mb and it prompts the users below p:2mb to update their policy preference(what useragent displays)

..
other features
- txsigoplimit 4k or less forever - mitigates native key txsigop quadratic scares
- nodes have a speed test measuring: a new block appearing, downloading and verifying. and the score is then averaged over 2016 blocks to get an average propagation time to then help discover what can be handled.
- users have more personal control of their node settings at runtime without needing to download new versions just to change a limit
- new priority fee formulae that actually does something more fairly
- at initial load/sync. nodes request a UTXO set FIRST to run as a lite client. thus the syncing is not felt like 'wait till complete to spend' and more of a 'spend while you wait' thing. (solving the main gripe of waiting to sync(lack of utility))

You can put a stop to this just support Sigwit. This spam is coming from the chines mining pools. Making blocks larger would just increase their profit margins. The larger blocks get the more advantage they gain.

I strongly believe all this spam transactions are coming form BU supporters.
Few days ago mempool was almost empty and out of sudden they are full with unconfirmed transactions this is good sign of intentional spam attacks.

Seems pretty unlikely that any significant project would be going on from anyone without a specific agenda.

The only incentive anyone would have to spam the network is to make the situation appear more desperate than it is and pressure Bitcoiners to reach a consensus.  That could be from BU or Core supporters, but in either case it's not representative of the solution's overall supporters.

These sort of attacks are now a common occurrence so that people gets frustrated and create some uncertainty among the users,so that some can take the advantage when there is a price movement simply because of that and may be that is the reason they are willing to spend a lot of money to  create these sort of dust transaction just to cluster the network.

That is why these attack are occuring sometimes, some groups of people want to persuade the others to their idea, but they are suffering for the lack of the arguments, so they decide to make a traffic on blockchain network, which is extremely annoying for every bitcoin user.

Without any good solution, we will suffer because such of attack more often, if it is so easy to cluster the blockchain network, then it will happen more usually, as a way to force community to do some things, such as increase of the fee ( you have to increase it during such a traffic, unless you want to wait for a reaaaally long time ).

For you, how many satoshis a transaction has to be considered a spammed one?

Yes we can do this blocksize enlargement for bigger transaction pool and to lessesn the unconfirmed transactions even thou it is a spam fake pump or what ever it is.Larger blocksize would help alot but i think enlarging block size will be hard.But still possible though

Wow, another spam flood transactions again? I didn't see it when unconfirmed transaction reach 60K, but less than 12 hours last time I checked it ; from 10K unconfirmed and now become 39K unconfirmed transaction.
Yes, I think increase block size limit at least 2Mb will make it better as miners could process a lot of transactions faster without leaving so much behind.