It was an attack. What you've linked shows the number of transactions that went through (on a particular day). The attacker was creating a lot of transactions in the 1-10 satoshis per byte range. This filled up the mempool. Is the Bitcoin network under attack guys?
It was 2 days ago. It seems to have stopped. But it takes longer confirmations to come.
If you included the recommended fee which was 60 satoshis/byte (still is), it doesn't. |
|
|
|
You can't have a dev team that goes against the wishes of like 90% of bitcoiners and also against common sense as a whole. It's insane. We've all gone crazy.
"90%"? Where did this imaginary number come up? The people who support Classic are a minority. Obviously SegWit is kicking the can down the road the same way as 2 MB increase. Both are just temporary solutions to the onchain capacity limits which Bitcoin will be facing whenever it gets adopted more.
Correct. A HF proposal should be seen just after Segwit though. And Im not sure 6-9 months grace period is realistical with Core, because of different opinions and vested interests (always follow money) between so many Core developers.
They seem to be okay with a a grace period nearing 1 year. However, more things need to be agreed on before consensus is reached. |
|
|
|
I do not think that a hard fork can hurt bitcoin,however a hard fork is required,vulnerabilities like ?
Hard Forks can't be done often for various reasons, therefore we should use one to fix things that are over-due. The HF that Classic is proposed: 1) Does not fix anything (adds sigops limitation that will have to be remove anyhow); 2) Is fundamentally flawed in its design (grace period, consensus threshold). there is something about network propagation rate or something like that and about orphan blocks.
I`m not an expert on this, but there are vulnerabilities.
Reading this might be useful: Bitcoin vulnerabilities; Hard fork wishlist. |
|
|
|
Would be nice if blockchain and content could be compressed up and not needed getting way too big and storing too much data on my system.
Not really no. Somebody suggested compressing the data within the blocks but that doesn't work either (random data compression). Hate to see what the average size of core is going to be by next year or 2 to 3 years. Think the average joe is not going to download due to size.
The data will be rising constantly. The average Joe does not need to have everything downloaded if they don't want to. They can use SPV clients (e.g. electrum). Still getting crashing when loading so guessing not fixed my problem in last 3 or 4 version updates when using on SSD.
Have you reported it with more information to the developers? I've been using it on 2 SSDs and 1 external HDD and have not had problems in any versions so far. |
|
|
|
Segwit is good idea but an increase would required
Segwit should increase the transaction capacity to ~180-190% (or even more depending on use cases). This is close enough to a 2 MB block size limit (keep in mind that there is no guarantee that miners won't use their soft limits again). An increase is most likely going to happen, the question is just when. you have try to post on r/bitcoin about xt or classic ?
You should know how contentious HF's are viewed in these places by now. Implementations that don't break consensus are allowed (AFAIK). I'm not involved in either subreddit so I can't say much. A larger blocksize will make a spam attack more expensive, no?
Not necessarily. ANd that is also why it is urgent to have a block size increase.
No. |
|
|
|
Lauda you must be lawyer right?
I'm a lot of things, but that is not one of them. I did not say that the block-size increase will prevent spam but it will help to have a smooth network operation.
I assumed that you think that an increase will solve the 'problems'/prevent attacks such as the one that occurred yesterday (which is the case with a lot of people). It is good that you understand that it won't. However, a block size limit increase is not necessary right now as Segwit will be implemented first which should increase the transaction capacity of the network. Theoretically (considering how resourceful some people are) the blocks could be always full. if you think the Censorship is present on /r/btc and not on r/bitcoin you just dreaming,let see things as they are and not as we would like to be
I never said such. However, I've seen a decent amount of 'people' complaining about /r/bitcoin and using /r/btc even though problems are present on both. Try posting something positive about Core on /r/btc and tell me what happens. |
|
|
|
i never touched fee section nor i have any idea about this.i just see in clinet fee is set to recommend than i dont know why it happened so.
I don't have much experience in using Multibit so I can't really tell you that much about it. However, it seems that you're using an outdated version. The current one is v0.2.0. please tell me who is ( Shorena or someone else might be able to help you by rebroadcasting your transactions. ) how to contact them.
This is Shorena. You can contact them via a direct message (by pressing this button on their profile):  It can't until the previous transaction confirms (the currently unconfirmed input). This is the transaction. |
|
|
|
-snip-
However, keep in mind that this is not the right place to discuss this. We are moving away from the original topic.
Either send me a direct PM or open up another thread/post in relevant one. This thread is not about Core vs. Classic; Segwit vs. 2 MB block size limit or any of that. I'd be willing to discuss in such. However, this thread is about transaction delays and the recent attack. |
|
|
|
Definitely needs a block-size limit increase
Which effectively does nothing in the case of an attack. A block size limit increase does not prevent these types of attacks. The problem is that some people (e.g. Lauda) instantly dismiss anyone who tries to have a reasonable discussion with them as being a shill, troll, or whatever.
Disagreeing is one thing, refusing to listen to reason and evidence is another. On /r/bitcoin you can't even mention non-core clients without your posts or comments being removed.
Censorship is present on /r/btc. This is just a spam attack on the network, nothing more.
Correct. Luckily 'btc' has less google seraches than 'bitcoin' , so most newbies will more likely join /bitcoin subreddit after their first google search.
/r/btc is very toxic and should be avoided in any case, especially for new users. |
|
|
|
You've included a fee of 40 000 satoshis for a transaction size of 3918 bytes. This means that you've included a fee of ~10 satoshis per byte which is low. The recommended fee is currently 60 satoshis per byte. This transactions spends an input that is not confirmed. A fee of 11 800 satoshis for a transacion size of 962 bytes. You've included a fee of ~12 satoshis per byte; therefore the same problem as TX 1.
Shorena or someone else might be able to help you by rebroadcasting your transactions. |
|
|
|
For the record, I never felt manipulated.
I'd say that intentionally feeding you false information is manipulating, but suit yourself. Lauda, the ball is in your court. Do you see the opportunity for compromise here? 1.1MB (or 2MB) *and* SegWit? Or will you stand firmly on the SegWit only approach?
Exactly why would anyone want to do a HF right now (these are not easy to do and definitely not the preference of many) because of additional 100 kB? It is pointless at the moment and some patience is necessary. Segwit is just around the corner. and a HF proposal should be presented between April and July as well.
However, keep in mind that this is not the right place to discuss this. We are moving away from the original topic. On-topic: Currently there are 17.5k unconfirmed transactions (according to blockchain.info) and the number seems to be going down for now. |
|
|
|
I have heard about sidechains but have not gone deeper into it. If you would like to enlighten me more about it, I would greatly appreciate it. Based on what I have read from your post, it looks like it is a very interesting concept.  Sidechains are basically a mechanism with enables you to move your coins into another blockchain without the need of a third party or anything. This is done with a two-way-peg and you can move your coins back later. It is not easy to explain them in a very short way; this might help. There'll have to be something second layer. Whether that'll ever be the lightning network or 21's solution or anyone else remains to be seen.
LN is far superior than their solution and will be free to use (aside from the TX fees).
Bitcoin can't even come close to a centralized solution such as Visa when it comes to on-chain scaling only (without sacrificing decentralization). |
|
|
|
Perhaps a larger block size doesn't solve "this" but it certainly wouldn't hurt, right?
If by "wouldn't hurt" you mean it would waste unnecessary resources and add more cost to node operators, then yes. This does not however mean that the block size limit will never be increased. The issue is much more complex. I just want to see Bitcoin thrive and I earnestly believe that increasing the blocksize is the best way to do this.
Regardless of how many times you repeat the lie, it won't make it true. What you hope for is not possible in that way. If you did post such a concept on any one of the main Core channels they would just ban and censor you, I would be very surprised if that did not happen.
This does not happen. This is part of why many prominent developers have moved to alternative implementations where these issues can be discussed and implemented.
If by "prominent" you mean random developers who haven't contributed much to Bitcoin (if at all), then yes. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is a permisionless network, I do not think there even is such a thing as spam unless you can prove the malicious intentions of the spammers, which is sometimes the case.
With a little bit of blockchain analysis you can do this; this is what happened yesterday. I'd also put dust into this category. Ok, fine. What do I do? Offer to pay a bounty for my version? How much is this going to cost me? Literally dust off my coding skills? Geesh, I did download the Git software a while ago and goofed around with it. I am an old VMS cli kind of guy so this is out of my comfort zone.
Step 1) Ignore the manipulation attempts. An increased block size limit does not solve this problem. Step 2) Wait for Segwit and LN. The easiest/best/only? way to fight spam is by making it expensive for them. So far the only answer appears to be increasing fees. Attempting to increase adoption with unrealistic low/zero fees is misleading.
Even if we had a 2MB block size limit/Segwit this could still happen any day (as it was an attack). This doesn't solve the problem. Something that could be considered a 'solution' with instant transactions is the Lightning Network (you might want to read up on it). One day we will need to increase the block size in order to accommodate non-spam traffic; we just aren't there yet. How much non-spam traffic is flowing through these days?
According to the roundtable (a 'unnamed' expert said) that blocks are 40% full right now (IIRC) and that the rest was spam. |
|
|
|
no, only you see no-sense everywhere, how you can be sure that it will only postpone it and not resolve it, only because segwit was temporary?
This is because some analyze and do research while other post because of other reasons. Even if we had a 2 MB block size limit/Segwit, what happened yesterday would have still happened (ergo not a solution) and caused the same/similar effect. we can find another better solution if enough time is given
Delaying the problem != solution to the problem. The LN is the only known 'solution' so far. Straw man. I say no!
Segwit first, then HF later.
The correct answer. People need to understand that neither one of two will solve this problem (if someone attacks the network in a similar fashion again).
Update: Welcome back to the ignore list. |
|
|
|
Miners still arnt switching to classic.
There isn't a single valid reason to switch to Classic. Don't start this debate in yet another thread please. So they either don't care that the blocks are full or don't trust classic.
Classic doesn't solve the problem that was caused by the attack. Please read the whole topic before posting. |
|
|
|
According to me SegWit is the ultimate conclusion to solve this kind of problems.
Neither Segwit nor a 2 MB block size limit (ignore the false propaganda by the shills) are any kind of solution to this problem. What they essentially do, when you look at it from this perspective, is delay the problem a bit. Currently the only known way to avoid this and have instant transactions would be the Lightning Network (still in development). Bitcoin is sick.
Bitcoin is not organic, therefore it can't get sick. There's an unusually high number of unconfirmed transaction.
This is the result of an attack on the network. many third party services are still paying a fixed fee of .0001 or .0002 for every transaction though. and their tx usually have multiple inputs.
 |
|
|
|
it buy us enough time to find another solution, which is maybe better than blockstream and the sidechain thing, like we have found the segwit solution
so no, it can solve the problem
You don't know the definition of 'solving' in technology. What this is doing is postponing the problem (for a very short time period), ergo not a solution. Don't post further nonsense. it's total overshill - is anyone taking all these ( how many now ? ) full blox!!! FUD threads seriously ?
The campaign seems very well funded. Though I'm unsure how far and how fast SegWit can change the problems.
Segwit is necessary for things such as LN. Segwit can only add somewhat more capacity and is not the solution to this "problem". Actually there is no way to directly (on-chain) solve this "problem" without sacrificing decentralization. Im no techie expert but using my limited knowledge & what I've researched I like the sound of SegWit being implemented in approx April 2016 & then push out the hardfork summer 2017. I think this is the best way to go.
Keep in mind the it will take a while to activate Segwit (depends on the miners). Even if it gets implemented early April, it will take additional time until it gets activated. |
|
|
|
Can you put in a good word for me? This has been weeks now.
I've sent a message to theymos (no guarantees though). What can be the hold up exactly it must be a 30 second job to
It takes more time. Knowing this is proven to be a hacker using the legendary account of mine... do you or other mods and staff not have the powers to freeze that account?
Not really, no. The only thing that (some) moderators could do is ban him. However, this isn't the method used in dealing with these things.
Now please lock this thread. If you have further questions post it in your previous thread or PM directly. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
