Kraken is already (and from a long time ago) at 0,0005
VirVox is at 0,005 BTC.
Deal with It.
Exchange works.
Business.
What is the price of your plastic credit card, bro ?
Year 2017. Fee is now 1btc, because miners orchestrated stress/spam test n. 88894. Deal with it. Thank you for this. People need to see the whole picture not just that "its ok for now". People who advocate that increasing the fee is the solution and should just suck it up and pay the fee, are usually miners in some way. New users and the community understands fees will take over when block rewards can no long cover mining costs. But the idea that higher fees are needed now to stop spam, is not true, and is a easy way to manipulate new users. |
|
|
|
|
This OP sounds exactly like when I debated a user over whether Bitcoin is actually an unregulated lottery, months ago.
It is possible this OP is just arguing for argument sake.
FWIW, currently, BTC is a commodity or a property.
It has not reached currency ability or status.
Satoshi Nakamoto's original intention was to create a currency.
That is many years away.
|
|
|
|
can anyone explaine wtf is happening , i can see all address's balance on blockchain.info , ONLY this address:
...
That is one of the addresses that was used to send/receive tx during the spam test/attack. It has a massive amount of very low inputs and thus it lags Blockchain.info's system. There are many addresses currently existing like that one. This is one of many. (Probably over 20 others) |
|
|
|
Narrowed down to four options: (1) Chinese Miners, attempting to get the fee/zero limits rasied. (2) Chinese LTC Pumpers, attempting to get Bitcoin users to transfer to LTC. (3) OKCoin Exchange, attempting manipulation to prevent their bankruptcy. (4) All the above working together in some form or another.  Anyone thinking this is a bank or billionaires doing this for shits is on the wrong path. This was purposefully done, to facilitate some sort of manipulated realized gain. I think 1 is unlikely because miners already can decide what transactions they want to include. They can even create empty blocks or accept only transactions with a minimum fee of 0.1 Bitcoin, when they want. And since china has the biggest miners, they likely could sit together and work out a plan. Then only accept high fee transactions. All other transactions would wait considerably longer then. At the end the fees most probably would rise.
If miners all raise their fees, without outside influence on the network (the spam attack), then it would be seen as corrupt/bad by the community. The spam attack gives the miners a reason to raise fee much earlier in advance of block rewards lowering. Miners fees went up 2000% at minimum during backlog. What you outlined above is exactly what happened. So why do you think it is unlikely? I dont see that, litecoin price dropped, shortly later bitcoin too. Doesnt look correlated to me.
Your observation should be viewed earlier in the timeline. The recent attack started July 7, 2015. LTC pump started from there. Due to network problems, some users decided to "invest" into LTC to diversify their holdings, before the price dropped. One of the reasons LTC rose was because BTC users did so and did so since old LTC Dev (now at coinbase) stated that LTC has spam protections and faster confirms. People trading altcoins know what I'm talking about. 3? OKCoin is bankrupt? Guess i missed some news. And i dont see how spamming could help. Exchanges surely use high enough Transaction fees.
They are on verge potentially. Fractional reserve trading has cost them greatly. They also trade LTC, just FYI. |
|
|
|
Are you guys sure it's not another stress test.
I remember the previous ones didn't go as planned and at the time they were announce they would be.
So maybe it's another stress test.
Btw, I am seing 16K unconfirmed transactions (at the time of writing this) on blockchain.info
I dont think anyone is willing to burn that kind of money just to "test" the network. The networks behavior was pretty clear during the first tests. There was a LTC pump and dump recently and now BTC crashed from 300. This might not be related to the attack though. This dwarfs the first stress tests and is significantly longer in duration. My node currently sees somewhere between 42k and 60k unconfirmed TX. My node at home is running 0.11. and witnessed ~27k TX (~80MB) over night. I did however change it to accept any fee (as low as 1 satoshi) and plenty of free TX in order to make sure I get all of the spam. Blockchain.info however modified their nodes to not accept most of the spam TX, which would explain why they show such a "low" number.  Thanks for thet chart, Sho, it shows quite clearly that whatever is going on is orders of magnitude larger than what happened on 23/6 and 1/7. Now I'm just wondering who is doing it and how long they can keep it up. May i ask where did you get that chart from, thank for it also i havent been able to find something like that to see a 30 day perceptive of the transaction volume progress, I do also wonder how long would they or he could keep up that high volume of transactions is most likely to be a large operator to run that type of volume. That chart comes from Shorena's Node (its provided in Shorena's profile). http://213.165.91.169/ |
|
|
|
good to have Litecoin too  I have no problem with LTC, in general. What I was referring to, was the Chinese LTC Pumpers, who recently pumped it with the intention of dumping on people. See here: https://blog.bitmex.com/chinese-promoter-pumping-litecoin-via-ponzi-scheme/By messing with the Bitcoin Network, some BTC Users may have bought into LTC at that time, increasing their profits in their dump. It is estimated that the Chinese Pumpers made $1.8 Million USD or 6980+ BTC. |
|
|
|
Narrowed down to four options: (1) Chinese Miners, attempting to get the fee/zero limits rasied. (2) Chinese LTC Pumpers, attempting to get Bitcoin users to transfer to LTC. (3) OKCoin Exchange, attempting manipulation to prevent their bankruptcy. (4) All the above working together in some form or another. Anyone thinking this is a bank or billionaires doing this for shits is on the wrong path. This was purposefully done, to facilitate some sort of manipulated realized gain. |
|
|
|
I ask because I sent a 256byte transaction with a 2KSat fee almost 5 days ago and still no confirmations. What is your txid? I will look at it for you  Thus I keep checking the number of unconfirmed tx and thus I keep seeing how high it it. But I haven't found a bitcointalk thread discussing this current situation/attack and I'm really starting to wonder what's happening.
There is not actually a "number" of unconfirmed tx on the network. Each node has it's own policy of which tx to relay, some based off of size verses tx fee and some based off of who is sending/receiving the tx. For example, if you were to "ask" eligius how many unconfirmed transactions there are, they would give you a much smaller number then if you "asked" AntPool. Kind Regards Good point about the fact that there's not actually an official number of unconfirmed tx on the network. I understand. However, I can look at http://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions and see that there are currently more than 19K transactions waiting for confirmation according to one particular node. When I looked at this page anytime in the past few years it tended to be between 500 and 1500 unconfirmed transactions, so the change is an order of magnitude. I think that kind of scale overcomes any sort of difference between nodes. Ie, it's not the case that bci has 19K unconfirmed tx and antpool has 500. The same page shows that transactions are being sent at approx 0.8 per second. These numbers are simply much higher than they were a month ago. Something is happening. I'm just trying to figure out what. I think there is 26k tx in the mempool from nodes that are not cutting out the spam. So roughly 26k are waiting a single confirm. In relation to who is behind the last test/attack, it was either Chinese miners or Chinese LTC Pumpers. That is why no one has taken credit. |
|
|
|
We all want a free internet man... Probably payed about $20k to pull it off, but the spammer is free to spam all he wants.
Network is doing fine... pay the fee, get the Tx...
I suspect that RBF and CPFP are all going to be folded in soon enough then we can augment fees of Tx in the mempool.
Soo....? Your not interested in what the intent of it was? Do you think it was a Chinese Pool/Miner or Chinese Government or other? |
|
|
|
Here is a node ip that relayed many txs from the spam attack/test: 123.57.189.199 You can view its tx through blockchain.info here: https://blockchain.info/ip-log?search_input=123.57.189.199Question 1: Why hasn't anyone or company made any statements or claims of responsibility to this attack/test? Question 2: If this node was innocent and hijacked/used by hackers to frame this node, why didn't the node operator shut it down? Question 3: Was this past attack/test performed by a Chinese Pool/Miner or maybe even the Chinese Government?  Update: See my post below as to recent LTC pump & dump: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1117783.msg11848714#msg11848714 |
|
|
|
I was wondering how to get LiteCoins with Bitcoins. If there's a website, can anyone tell me? Thanks!
Poloniex.comBut as a warning, LTC is currently being dumped. |
|
|
|
It seems an interesting proposal, although I think BTC/USD rates should not make an impact in the fees paid... Fees are paid to miners, who mine because they ultimately believe in Bitcoin and because of that the rule of "1 Bitcoin = 1 Bitcoin" should be applied here.
...
I understand what you are saying and I agree, but my reasoning for adding that is that miners, I believe, are converting their coins into their own currency, to pay their electric bills and for new equipment. And as such, they are concerned with current btc prices versus their expenses. I do not think the miners are thinking along your lines yet. But will one day in the future. |
|
|
|
First, I am not a programmer or mathematician, so please keep this in mind. I am a noob. The purpose of this is to see how miner's fee are adjusted in relation to the following three factors: 1. Current BTC Price (USD) 2. Average Number of Tx a Day 3. Current Block Award Amount The Miner's argument seems to be that when the block award is gone (decreases) fees must go up. But the question I have is: What is the equation or formula to determine a fair future fee? With all the discussions/arguments/and stress testing, I have not seen anyone propose an equation or formula that could potentially be used to automate miners fees for now and the future. Nor has anyone (that I have seen) have provided graphs or explanations as to how these three factors determine future fees. If the 1MB Cap is raised, then the mempool and unconfirmed status can not be used as measurement to pay a certain miner fee. Below is a picture of my formula with descriptions. Here is the link to google spreadsheets: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PKlZu8CuRUt-FItq_X3WzxxPsc8XzEUdSIejF1OwI_c/edit?usp=sharingIn google spreadsheets, you can edit the yellow boxes to change the three factors (inputs) to see different results.Please discuss and or correct.  Edit: Is this even viable? But if it is not (since I'm not educated in these matters) hopefully this will inspire the experts with other ideas. |
|
|
|
|
It will be interesting to see if China will start buying up BTC.
Currently, I'm not see much movement from them though.
|
|
|
|
Because if he had used his huge stash of bitcoin, it would look like a huge premine (around 2 and 3% mined by him, the dev)
Also, the block rewards are supposed to distribute the bitcoin, and not centralize all the bitcoin mined in 1 person hands.
Therefore, i think Satoshi prefered to sacrifice those premined coins for the sake of a better distribution of coins.
Satoshi died due to natural causes. His coins are locked for good. |
|
|
|
Your transaction is most likely in the mempool, whether that site (mempool.info) says so or otherwise (which it doesn't). Your transaction size (5980 bytes) should have a fee of 0.0005 for priority. You placed a fee of 0.0001. That is too low. There is currently around 4,300 txs in the mempool. Since you have low priority, it may take awhile to see a confirmation (hours). There may be "testing", "spamming" going on in the network, with conjugation of certain miners not filling their blocks on purpose. Because of this, your transaction has been unconfirmed for hours. Edit: BTW looks like mempool.info is broken and has txs claiming to be over 1 month old and older.
This is not possible because the mempool will automatically dump txs that are 48 hours old.
So that site must be broken. |
|
|
|
Now Greece is in real trouble. EU is sending out Bane to collect.   |
|
|
|
Maybe you can answer my question and stop tap dancing around.
Is your "filter" filtering based on transaction sizes and not miner fees?
And if so, are all transactions at or around that chosen number being excluded, including non-attacker txs?
I don't have a filter, but I can easily see the malicious DoS transactions are all of two different forms, making them very easy to filter. No need to check transactions sizes or fees. Don't expect Eligius to reveal the exact filter, since this will enable the attacker to circumvent it. So what you are saying is you don't actually know how they are filtering, but have decided to comment that it is correct, fine, and easy to do. All that I was saying is that they should not filter coins, addresses, servers, nodes,ip and etc, IMO. BTW, the attacker, if wanting to take down the network, would keep increasing transaction amount and fees to circumvent the "filtering". The intention is not to harm, in theory. This isn't an attacker, but most likely a tester or spammer. IMO. |
|
|
|
Well I don't see how it could determine who the attacker is without some reference point, such as address, ip, node, or etc.
You can't spot the spam transactions yourself? Get … eyes. No, you don't need to know who it is to block the transactions. So you are automatically adding and then manually subtracting those "spam" txs before publishing the block, with your eyes? If you need more than a few minutes to code a filter after looking at three of the spam transactions with your eyes, you should find something else to do with your life. Here is my original quote, that you then took part of, and responded to. Well I don't see how it could determine who the attacker is without some reference point, such as address, ip, node, or etc.
If you are just rejecting all transactions below a certain miner fee and not including in a block, then I have no problem, in theory.
I'm only against outright blacklisting/whitelisting of addresses/coins/etc that will ultimately lead to Bitcoin/bitcoin's destruction.
Maybe you can answer my question and stop tap dancing around. Is your "filter" filtering based on transaction sizes and not miner fees? And if so, are all transactions at or around that chosen number being excluded, including non-attacker txs? Because my understanding was that the attacker's txs are being excluded, not all below a chosen limit. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
