This might be an extremely stupid question, but:
are you sure you did not generate this address yesterday and send that transaction?
Well one can never be sure with his own memory but: 1) I do not recall using the wallet yesterday 2) It doesn't show up in the transactions 3) I don't recognize the address that sent the Bitcoins to this one either Also I was able to successfully import the address into Electrum and the balance has showed up. Just had to ask, before the experts come in and start analyzing your wallet program. It is just too weird that it (the suspect address) was just used yesterday. That's why I think it is not a collision.
Edit: added (the suspect address) |
|
|
|
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? |
|
|
|
|
This might be an extremely stupid question, but:
are you sure you did not generate this address yesterday and send that transaction?
|
|
|
|
I think this post pretty much proves your ignorance of the situation and how miners function and what their purpose is.
I'll just point out one thing and leave the rest alone.... Keep in mind that with Eligius filtering the spam transactions miners are not getting the fees those spam transactions carry. So, this is not a for profit decision. It's a decision to help bitcoin in general.
Miners have always determined what transactions make it into blocks. This is nothing new and nothing that will change.
Oh so you didn't actually address what I was saying, but instead made statements of my ignorance. Which btw, I admitted when I stated I was a noob, so thank you for your confirmation without explanation and correction of my understanding. My understanding is miners "choose" transaction based on fee amount and are placed into priority, not what you are saying which is: "Miners have always determined what transactions make it into blocks. This is nothing new and nothing that will change." But you aren't doing that. You have blacklisted the addresses of the "attacker", "Spammer", "tester" whatever people want to call them. Are you saying that all miners are blacklisting addresses? That's news to me and I'm sure other bitcoiners as well. Incorrect. The specific patch to Eligius which blocks this attack does not include any blacklist or addresses. 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. |
|
|
|
I think this post pretty much proves your ignorance of the situation and how miners function and what their purpose is.
I'll just point out one thing and leave the rest alone.... Keep in mind that with Eligius filtering the spam transactions miners are not getting the fees those spam transactions carry. So, this is not a for profit decision. It's a decision to help bitcoin in general.
Miners have always determined what transactions make it into blocks. This is nothing new and nothing that will change.
Oh so you didn't actually address what I was saying, but instead made statements of my ignorance. Which btw, I admitted when I stated I was a noob, so thank you for your confirmation without explanation and correction of my understanding. My understanding is miners "choose" transaction based on fee amount and are placed into priority, not what you are saying which is: "Miners have always determined what transactions make it into blocks. This is nothing new and nothing that will change." But you aren't doing that. You have blacklisted the addresses of the "attacker", "Spammer", "tester" whatever people want to call them. Are you saying that all miners are blacklisting addresses? That's news to me and I'm sure other bitcoiners as well. |
|
|
|
Ah, the drama. Looks like this malicious spam attack has no effect on other transactions than spam as well. From #bitcoin on Freenode: 19:30 <@wizkid057> xx1d: I've been filtering the attack on Eligius since the first one (as you'll notice Eligius does not mine the attacker's spam). I've also been monitoring Eligius's memory pool size. As other pools mine spam filled blocks they also are mining the majority of the legit txns that Eligius is trying to mine, dropping Eligius's memory pool down to just tens of KB... meaning the attack is
19:30 <@wizkid057> effectively ineffective even without Eligius explicitly filtering (the filtering just gives me a good metric to monitor)
Just as the previous malicious spam attack. An effective attack is going to cost a lot more, and require a large amount of capital in form of older larger inputs and larger outputs which are alowed to age before they are spent again. The spammer is wasting his coins again, proving that bitcoin works well. Smaller blocks only means the spammer wastes his coins more slowly. The attack is not meant to harm the network. This test is designed to measure the effect of what will happen when transaction volume starts to pick up naturally. Eligius filtering out the test's transactions is doing nothing but harm to Bitcoin and is a good reason why no one should mine on eligius. Filtering out transactions that belong to a certain person harms bitcoin's fungibility and it is things like their actions that will lead to Bitcoin's failure. Agreed. This also creates the precedence where miners are nonchalantly and flippantly willing to "blacklist" addresses. A dangerous road to dance down. Eligius is complacent in the erosion of Bitcoin/bitcoin. Miners have always been free to set policy on what transactions they mine and do not mine. Eligius chooses not to mine spam from a scammer's attack and instead focus on legitimate usage of the network. The goal of the attack is to slow down legitimate transaction processing... which by definition is a DoS (denial of service) attack. Now, let's for a second hypothetically put aside the fact that this particular attack is actually a malicious attack attempt on bitcoin. If there were a malicious and completely faceless attacker who was hell bent on harming bitcoin, and miners like Eligius could easily do something about it.... you're saying they shouldn't?  Seems counter intuitive. 'Those with the ability have the responsibility to take action' type of situation, and in this care the decision is pretty clear. Why would I have Eligius mine this scammer's spam transaction when instead it can mine the transaction of someone who actually just used bitcoin to purchase something, or bought or sold bitcoin, or whatever other legitimate use case is actually happening as we speak? Judging by miners moving to Eligius since I've announced the filtering of the spam attack (hash rate up over 10% in the last hour or so) I think miners are voting with their hash power (as they should be) and it's pretty clear what side of this argument they're on and they are more than welcome on Eligius. ... Miners are miners and profit is profit. Miners are not really concerned with Bitcoin/bitcoins future use and growth, they are only concerned with ROI now. They can and do jump ship at will. If miners do, in the future, as you say, and are doing currently, then the golden goose is already dead. When the Miners determine what to transact and not transact (or whitelist and blacklist), they are cooperating with those who wish to deteriorate the system and ultimately control the system. If you are not careful, with your way of thinking, one day it could be possible to blacklist all Eligius's block rewards, and other miners may agree. If you open the can, you won't know what you have really done, till its done. I am just a noob, but all transactions/addresses/coins must all remain valid, or one day none will be. |
|
|
|
Ah, the drama. Looks like this malicious spam attack has no effect on other transactions than spam as well. From #bitcoin on Freenode: 19:30 <@wizkid057> xx1d: I've been filtering the attack on Eligius since the first one (as you'll notice Eligius does not mine the attacker's spam). I've also been monitoring Eligius's memory pool size. As other pools mine spam filled blocks they also are mining the majority of the legit txns that Eligius is trying to mine, dropping Eligius's memory pool down to just tens of KB... meaning the attack is
19:30 <@wizkid057> effectively ineffective even without Eligius explicitly filtering (the filtering just gives me a good metric to monitor)
Just as the previous malicious spam attack. An effective attack is going to cost a lot more, and require a large amount of capital in form of older larger inputs and larger outputs which are alowed to age before they are spent again. The spammer is wasting his coins again, proving that bitcoin works well. Smaller blocks only means the spammer wastes his coins more slowly. The attack is not meant to harm the network. This test is designed to measure the effect of what will happen when transaction volume starts to pick up naturally. Eligius filtering out the test's transactions is doing nothing but harm to Bitcoin and is a good reason why no one should mine on eligius. Filtering out transactions that belong to a certain person harms bitcoin's fungibility and it is things like their actions that will lead to Bitcoin's failure. Agreed. This also creates the precedence where miners are nonchalantly and flippantly willing to "blacklist" addresses. A dangerous road to dance down. Eligius is complacent in the erosion of Bitcoin/bitcoin. |
|
|
|
No that's still the backlog from the short 15 minute long spike of the actual test. Transaction number is still slightly elevated but FAR from what KingAfurah proposed for their test. Check: http://statoshi.info/dashboard/db/transactionsYou can see the spike of the actual test that occurred hours ago, but did not last very long. KingAfurah care to explain what's going on? I'm not sure that website is correct. Either it is buggy or something is going on. 2015-06-30 6:54:30 = 2153 tx in mempool Then 10 minutes later 2015-06-30 7:04:30 = 13,760 tx in mempool That is a 11,500 tx increase in 10 minutes. That isn't a slow build, that is some error, IMO. |
|
|
|
...
Almost at 6 000 unconfirmed transactions so far, i think this is it.
...
15 minutes ago, an miner fee estimate to get into the next block was around 0.00075. Yes, I think this is it as well. Hold on to your asses fellas.  |
|
|
|
wooo!!!
sent some bits to: 18JwWGyMqgvkr7XbnUo23aAyHjR2bw2TDJ
Thanks for the tip. Here is a serious one.  |
|
|
|
...My apologies for the misplacement of this thread
That's ok, no apologies, no harm done. (Gotta watch out for the other forum members though..  ) |
|
|
|
 My prediction for Thursday.... |
|
|
|
You are right to some point, it will fail, but it will also give some useful information. Oh, definitely. I'm more than in support of stress tests themselves, as they're an integral part of any network. Basically, I'm just questioning the motive of these recent "stress tests" due to the timing. I'm assuming it's just Gavin and Mike trying to say, "see, bitcoin is broken, move over to XT", although I could be wrong. I don't think it is Gavin and company (or the other devs). During the last test, the "testers" discovered that when they pushed so many transactions, bitcoind crashed. That is what happens normally. A custom setup or etc should be used for such a test and frankly, if the network was "attacked" by some nefarious group (governments, bankers, hackers, etc) they would being using custom progs to damage the network. So, since the testers didn't know that bitcoind could handle it the first time, makes me believe it isn't any of the devs. |
|
|
|
...
I also buy gift cards, and exchange them. If this interests you, let me know.
...
I can sell my Gift card codes for your BTC. What is your purchase rate? Please provide an example or calculation. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Lol. Seriously?. Go read the comments on any news articles and youtube videos. This is normal for most sites now. As Holliday said, Welcome to the internet! You must be new here.
|
|
|
|
I still would love to know a bit more about ther person(s) in the background.
ahh really? why the fuck in this thread are some stupids asking for names, reasons, companies and similar bullshit? they tested network. for free. they also published results for free...and now is devs. turn to analyze and implement what is necessary. is totally irrelevant who is behind and because it cost only 2BTC for 12 hours, some rich bored smart ass can start it right now and run it until end of his life..without single announcement or thread like this one. deal with it. There are conspiracy theories running around that this was: (1) To cause the market to drop, and the "testers" would profit since they had millions in short positions set. (market didn't drop). (2) That this was done by people within the pro 1MB Raising Camp of Devs/close supporters, to show stress. (3) That this was done by people within the anti 1MB Raising Camp of Devs/close supporters pretending to be pro, but showed higher fees work. (4) That this was done by miners who were trying to increase fees and show how 1MB Raising isn't currently needed. (they want more fees). (5) That this was done by miners who were attempting to manipulate the fee market to rise before blocking halving (ex. new fee 0.0005 satos). (6) That the location that this site (coinwallet.eu) is located is associated with a virtual office that is known to be used by HYIP and Scammers. (7) That no one has heard of this wallet (coinwallet.eu) before and they used this test to build rep and get advertising. (8.) whatever etc etc etc So, some people are suspicious why someone would, that everyone doesn't know, would blow through 20btc (which I'm not sure they did) to test the network. (Their servers crashed). At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter, but of course, with this forum and other bitcoin related websites, people are always fighting. This is just another one of those topics now... "Who really are these guys?" Edit: added "s" to websites |
|
|
|
See everybody in one week, i guess. Lol. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
