It's really frustrating to see this spam attacks each time the community decide to do something that these people are against. If you had to guess or to give an almost accurate number, how much this could cost them? I mean, shouldn't we be worried that this may not end at SegWit2x (regardless whether they fail to activate it or not)? If its nothing much, this could continue to happen and as I believe some of these people are millionaires (e.g Roger Ver), It doesn't look promising
There is nothing frustrating than seeing you go through some challenging moments only for some people to hold several millions in ransom because of their own selfish interest and there is nothing one can do about it and this is one thing Satoshi didn't consider because if he had, he would have put a stop to it and there won't be need for all this back and forth situations. thats why we should from now on, only consider bips if they use the real consensus method. and not let core control the bips and then bypass consensus with their bait and switch consensus avoiding soft crap. in short we need to diversify more and have many brands, ofcourse if the brands are crap they wont reach consensus, but to let core dictate the rules is simply letting the bscartel control bitcoin |
|
|
|
Spam attacks plus miners not accepting low fee transactions = basically what we have right now. It's kinda frustrating to think that spam attacks can easily be done by the miners themselves to get high tx fees going thus producing more profit. This is what happens when some egotistic miners don't get what they wanted.
pools dont care about tx fee's. its why pools do empty block efficiencies.. its better to get the reward guaranteed rather then waste time organising transactions in high fee's and not be even guaranteed the blckreward because they wasted time the main perpetrators of high fee's is core. removing all the fee priority mechanisms, doing it as 'averages' actually pushes fee's up if you bother to run scenarios even due low demand. and then instead of coding better priority mechanisms, screaming to people to "just pay more" you also have the core devs doing their mixers, which is another spam method. yep mixers respend funds promoted at anonymity but the reality is that its using up much needed blockspace.. in short its snobbery that only certain people should deserve the priority of block utility pools do the add personal internal tx's first because they know they are definitely unconfirmed so safe to add when they start a new block before validating first block, purely to pretend they are not empty blocking. |
|
|
|
spam attacks dont cost much
imagine a pool like BTCC
they create a load of transactions themselves and then only put them into their own blocks. the fee's go back to themselves.. hence cheap-free
they then cause other pools to take up the backlog of non internal spam.
How can they guarantee that only their transactions go into their blocks? What if their transactions go into other miners blocks? That represents a loss, right? by not transmitting the tx's unconfirmd, the other pools cant add them.. in short you cant add what u dont receive the internal spammers just avoid looking at the mempool of general network tx's and avoid transmitting tx's to others. and just add their own private tx's to their own block. leaving general tx's to pile up BTCC admitted this with their zero fee promotion a couple years ago by preferring their own tx's over other normal tx's. as for your other comment about tx count.. less people are transacting in general due to high fee's.. so where u say 250 constant can be 150 general and 50 spam =200.. rather than your thought that its 200 general and no spam now |
|
|
|
spam attacks dont cost much
imagine a pool like BTCC
they create a load of transactions themselves and then only put them into their own blocks. the fee's go back to themselves.. hence cheap-free
they then cause other pools to take up the backlog of non internal spam.
I've thought about that, and I hate that idea because it means spammers are miners. I've thought first that spammers were outsiders, people who wanted to destroy BTC so that they could launch their own altcoin, or something like that. It's highly disappointing to discover that spammers are at the roots of BTC. go check out litecoin... all the propaganda that pools love segwit. yet non of them bothered using segwit transactions for their coinbase(blockrewards) because they didnt trust segwit. theres alot of puppetry happening. but most of it is directed by the BSCARTEL (blockstream+BarrySilbert) its all about gtting sheep t point at other sheep and scream that everyone should fear other sheep and to instead run towards the wolves for "protection" because they are stronger.. but not realising they are running towards the wolves who are hungry for lamb and they also do have funding to the tune of hundreds of millions invested to also do outside spamming aswell.. check out 2016.. the blockstreams 2 bips.. june 2016 and november 2016.. then look at when the spam spiking began |
|
|
|
Mining empty blocks is also a spam, transaction backlog especially if you are the biggest mining pool. Antpool spammed at a loss, giving up more than $100,000 in transaction fees in the last 24 hours. Good to see their last 5 blocks are all above 999 KB. Obviously from an incentive point of view, spamming at a loss and letting other pools benefit from it isn't as attractive as incentivized spamming.
empty blocks are not an attack, they are a efficiency method.. and yep BTCC and other BSCARTEL pools do it too.. https://blockchain.info/block-height/481930its about starting a new block before validating the last and not adding tx's until the last block is validated.. because bad things can happen if you add the wrong transactions the pools then do actually add tx's to the block once validated,, but because they start sooner sometimes they get the LUCK of having a solution before getting to add tx's thus its about efficiency and luck. not intentional attack. it might be worth people doing research and learning bitcoin.. instead of reading propaganda scripts |
|
|
|
|
spam attacks dont cost much
imagine a pool like BTCC
they create a load of transactions themselves and then only put them into their own blocks. the fee's go back to themselves.. hence cheap-free
they then cause other pools to take up the backlog of non internal spam.
|
|
|
|
Roger Ver+Jihad is spamming the network heavily after segwit activation as the smart users predicted, actually very predictable. Now he is doing astroturfing everywhere, including thi forum. "See, segwit didn't work, we need a blocksize increase!"
billy change the record bitcoin cash is a separate network. you might aswell be trying to say that 42coin is a threat to bitcoin... wake up as for who is spamming, its like the last 2 years its the bscartel (blockstream +silbert) that want to convert people to segwit by making people think its beneficial to move over ASAP by using fear and panic as always.. again wake up if you want to be rational. realise the ultimate truth. until the major merchant shopping cart services flip to a different network, there is no fear. and at the moment coinbase merchant tools has more chance of flipping to litecoin than it does to any other coin. so start making people aware of litecoin as the threat... again wake up |
|
|
|
|
and now people are realising the activation is meaningless
to get 2.1mb of real economic average base blocksize nearly everyone needs to move their funds over to segwit based transaction keypairs..
8 years ago it was possibly to have 7tx/s if near everyone decided to do lean transactions.. yet in 8 years it has not been seen.
same will happen now. its near impossible for near everyone to be using segwit based transactions. so dont expect the 7tx/s anytime soon or regularly.
segwit does NOT stop spam
segwit does NOT stop quadratics
segwit does NOT stop bloated tx's
all segwit does is offer innocent people to disarm themselves. but does not stop malicious people from continuing to do what they do.
segwit has been an over promised under delivered empty gesture that has wasted 2 years of innovation.
people are now starting to wake up to it and wishing proper rules and proper universal growth was the route to take
what the activation has done was to change the topology of the network is now set. with the cartels nodes at the top and the cludge of other nodes at the bottom.
|
|
|
|
|
to answer the OP's question....
no it wont empty the mempool.. infact it will fill the mempool
the only way to utilise the "weight" is to first move funds out of old transaction format (legacy keypairs) and then spend again in new segwit transactions (sw keypairs) then and only then would the segwit transaction utilise the weight area.
the issue with this is if everyone was to move to use segwit keys to even get close to a 2.1mb weight estimate.. everyone has to move their funds out of old legacy keypairs..
there are millions of UTXO's using legacy keypairs, meaning alot of spending needs to occur BEFORE its treated as segwit based funds..
|
|
|
|
I always thought that central bankers, financial institutions, goverments where Bitcoin's main targets but the biggest threat comes from within.
Roger Ver, Jihan Wu and those bigblockers sheeps are the biggest threat, if Jihan controls Bitcoin than the consequences will be horrible.
how can jihan control bitcoin if he decided to not mine bitcoin, and instead mine an altcoin... your propaganda makes no sense i do laugh at you lot but loosely translating your actual fear: NOT following the BSCartel roadmap like a sheep is the biggest threat... to the BScartel's control of their chain but if your still afraid and crying behind a pillow, ill help you out. 1. unless bitcoin cash gets accepted through merchant portals like bitpay and coinbase (many hundred thousand real world merchant shopping carts), relax.. its just an altcoin 2. if bitmain wants to mine an altcoin, let them.. that means bigger slice pie for whomever is left mining bitcoin 3. stronger hint about point one.. its more about utility than hashpower that makes a coin successful (yes im being unbiased to avoid my posts getting deleted by the snobs of the bscartel) |
|
|
|
|
the weakness of blockchain is not identification
if your transacting with someone, its up to YOU to do personal due diligence
no bank note on the planet is stamped with the holders life story. its up to the people trading bank notes to vet and decide who they hand bank notes to.
you dont need to force people to stamp their life story to bank notes or register details with a identity company to trade bank notes.. you simply get the people to decide should they hand their bank notes to a complete stranger or get to know someone enough or vet the risks of what will happen if they hand over a bank note..
same rule applies with bitcoin.
the weakness of blockchain, is the lack of education of personal responsibility
|
|
|
|
|
bitcoin nodes are distributed...
but that does not mean that its decentralised.
think beyond distribution when learning about decentralisation.
think about the deeper aspects
also .. no im not talking about the FUD rhetoric found on reddit about "china"
think deeper about the network and puppetmasters.. not ASICS
|
|
|
|
Everyone is free to make their own Bitcoin client. Bitcoin Knots has existed for a long time for example. As long as it doesn't change the network rules, it's ok (XT, Classic, segwit2x, Unlimited, Cash... changes the rules). You can hardfork into an altcoin Bitcoin Cash style, just don't pretend it's Bitcoin.
everyone is free to make their own bitcoin client but who says only core get to choose the rules!! what it should be is that anyone can make a client.. and the rules only change when the community follow a majority client of a certain rule. this does not mean that client then suddenly becomes the god code forever and always after that no matter what. in the future core devs may move onto different projects and new better devs turn up using different clients.. this does not mean we should still remain with core for brand sake even if their pool of devs have diluted down to script kiddies and spell checkers if a different client offers better code and better long term view of keeping bitcoins longevity going. people should be free to follow it. trying to make core the only rule decider .. or more realistically the rule change preventer.. then bitcoins ethos has been destroyed and you might aswell call core the IMF.. if you think core should be lord and master forever and always even if gmax, wuille and others moved away and only coded for hyperledger.. then you have missed logic, technical innovation and diversity principles.. please look passed your brown nose of brand "core".. and think about bitcoin..
its simple anyone can make a client that fits the current rules but can also include (future activating) features that may offer something better in the future.. let people use it. if it fails to function it fails.. diversity of different brands and codebases holding current ruleset will keep the network alive.. if the future feature fails to gain consensus.. then it fails to gain consensus.. diversity of different brands and codebases holding current ruleset will keep the network alive with the current ruleset if the future feature gains consensus.. then it gains consensus.. the diversity then has to adapt to the new ruleset to remain a diverse part of the network by the time the feature activation period occurs.. meaning all the brands are then on the same equal level playing ground. what should not happen is one small group become gods.. as that is not diverse, that is not decentralised and that is certainly not the bitcoin ethos. stop being afraid of bitcoins mechanism.. stop avoiding using bitcoins consensus mechanism and stop screaming doomsdays of the consensus mechanism purely due to brand dictatorship desire. |
|
|
|
It's just how it's supposed to be. You can't accept protocol-changing nodes trying to change consensus rules. Satoshi warned us about that: The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime. Because of that, I wanted to design it to support every possible transaction type I could think of. The problem was, each thing required special support code and data fields whether it was used or not, and only covered one special case at a time. It would have been an explosion of special cases. The solution was script, which generalizes the problem so transacting parties can describe their transaction as a predicate that the node network evaluates. The nodes only need to understand the transaction to the extent of evaluating whether the sender's conditions are met.
The script is actually a predicate. It's just an equation that evaluates to true or false. Predicate is a long and unfamiliar word so I called it script.
The receiver of a payment does a template match on the script. Currently, receivers only accept two templates: direct payment and bitcoin address. Future versions can add templates for more transaction types and nodes running that version or higher will be able to receive them. All versions of nodes in the network can verify and process any new transactions into blocks, even though they may not know how to read them.
The design supports a tremendous variety of possible transaction types that I designed years ago. Escrow transactions, bonded contracts, third party arbitration, multi-party signature, etc. If Bitcoin catches on in a big way, these are things we'll want to explore in the future, but they all had to be designed at the beginning to make sure they would be possible later.
I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network. The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint.
It's hard enough maintaining backward compatibility while upgrading the network without a second version locking things in. If the second version screwed up, the user experience would reflect badly on both, although it would at least reinforce to users the importance of staying with the official version.
satoshi as one man said it was hard for him to monitor, peer review and bug fix multiple versions. however if you actually check history. in satoshi's day there were atleast 12 different codebases. most notably, while satoshi was working on his codebase on a different platform, gavin was working on a codebase on github. and that same githb codebase of gavins evolved to be what is now core.. meaning core were and are not using satoshi's codebase.. secondly satoshi knew at that very point by saying those words that if he continued with that mindset he would become the leader/ruler/decider of bitcoin if there was only one codebase. which actually was his wakeup call to pull back and allow the community to diversify and keep bitcoin open with no controller. bitcoin has a mechanism that prevents an implementation just taking over, its called consensus.. meaning the majority of people running a certain rule win.. changes only occur when a certain ruleset is used by the majority. core try bypassing this by slipping in changes under the fense. which is where people get confused and afraid to actually use consensus and instead think consensus is bad. thus basically handing control over to one party because they think that is what satoshi wanted. to me its all just twisting the facts to make it sound like satoshi was advocating dominant control of bitcoin by the BScartel simple from bscartels fanboys thinking satoshi wanted just one implementation. when the actual context is that one man cannot monitor and maintain more than one implementation at a time without going nuts. bitcoins consensus/orphaning mechanism is there for a reason.. avoiding it and trying to slip code in without using it while also REKTing anything else that wants to actually use all of bitcoins features.. is the opposite of bitcoins ethos |
|
|
|
The really bad news is this here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10982Blockstream really wants to isolate and keep core power centralized, rather to compromise and allow multiple client implementation. Will all follow by blindly upgade to 0.15 ? No, you're really not understanding what that's doing. There would be serious partitioning and disconnects with bans with multiple incompatible clients out there leading to a complete mess of a network. The whole purpose of this PR is to ensure that when the fork happens, it happens cleanly. The goal is to make nodes not ban each other, not have cross talk between chains, and avoid partitioning the network. By disconnecting (not banning) peers with these service bits, we are making it easier and more likely for those peers to be able to connect to other peers that will be using the same consensus rules, i.e. btc1 peers are more likely to make connections to other btc1 peers. This minimizes the risk of network partitioning following the fork as the btc1 nodes will be connected to each other.
I fully understand what Matt & BS are about. They WANT to split from btc1 - and so make btc1 and the 2x to be an alt.. yep a direct unilateral split. the real funny part is this all makes more sense from a dictionary point of view if you swap the words ban :-> suspend disconnect:->ban because a ban is more official/permanent. where as a suspend is temporary which currently is confusing for some because cores current 'ban' is temporary(minutes/hours). where as their proposed 'disconnect' is more permanent(1 year, possibly more) meaning core dont want to temporarily avoid their opposition. they want to permanently avoid communicating with their opposition. again this is another attempt of core controlling the network and again avoid bitcoins built in consensus/orphaning mechanism from allowing users to decide when/if the network should move to 2mb baseblock. by forcing the core fanboys to not even have a free choice. it would be so much easier for core to just add the 2mb base block code into their implementation and just allow the network to evolve. instead of forcing their stifled, 1mb base block, Neanderthal mindset onto their fanboys being conservative is not about forward looking innovation. is about devolving, and preserving things. which will actually end up chocking the network it seems people prefer to trust devs more than reading code, reading a dictionary and reading between the lines.. core are becoming more ridiculous with every passing year. in short. core: stop wasting time and lots of lines of code to avoid evolving the network by splitting the community. and instead just add the lines of code that add 2mb base blocks and unite the community!!! USE BITCOINS NETWORK CONSENSUS MECHANISM.. STOP AVOIDING IT!! stop working around consensus |
|
|
|
|
even after grace period. there is then issues
1. new client version release needed that allows user to actually use the keypairs.
2. people then moving funds over to segwit keypairs (can cause mempool bloat/delays while people try using segwit)
dont expect drama to end any time soon
dont expect double capacity
dont expect quadratic/malleated/spam transactions to be impossible
|
|
|
|
You can't force consensus changes on the people.
oh lauda. if that were true then segwit wouldnt have been activated. segwit got activated by bypassing 'the people' (via pools only activation(softfork)) and then forced pools to accept it or get blocks rejected. basically "the people" had no say. it got activated by fear and emotional insecurity open your eyes yea yea i know your going to word twist things and say "but segwit was not consensus vote. its was a forced activation of protocol changes of a details held in a file named consensus.. rather than a true consensus vote being forced. (2 different things) but you'll be missing the point. certain changes should only be done by bitcoins true consensus, no bypassing it like core had done and will do again. no coercion / threats via UASF UAHF.. only by true consensus agreement |
|
|
|
"Bitcoin can’t scale to meet demand, unless demand vanishes and it all fails. If bitcoin is used by 100,000 people today, and we want everyone to use it, we need bitcoin capacity to grow 75,000 times larger. " i am laughing... ok so imagine 100,000 PEOPLE use bitcoin.. knowing the stats of actually average usage (5 tx per month) that works out as 500,000 a month = <18,000 tx/day (btc utility stats) or even taking debit card utility of ~1tx a day per person, works out as 2.8m a month = 100,000 tx a day (debit utility stats) which if you actually do som maths.. 144blocks a day of ~2500 tx/block = 360,000 tx a day. meaning if based on comparing to debit card utility. bitcoin can at just 1mb base block.. be capable of 360,000 people. or because bitcoin cant be used for all daily needs(not mainstream in every rtailer world wide right now). if based on bitcoin real utility needs average as capable of handling 2million people in short knowing bitcoin cant be used to buy just anything. the 1mb baseblock allows 2million people to do needed bitcoin tx a day. or based on a utopia of buying things you can buy with debit card. 1mb can handle 360,000 people. so a 2mb block can handle double then in time that can double again.. but that requires blockstream stop controlling the bip proposals and leading the devs down poorly laid out roadmaps.. and actually let the base block grow NATURALLY over time. Rusty is too cabin fever/stuck in his blockstream motivations that he and his colleagues will scream any dooms day they can to sell their offchain commercial services. so much so they have even removed fee priority, and added things to be the cause of a fee rise even when demand is low. "Yet we’re already struggling with 140GB of storage caused by bitcoin’s first 8 years when it was mainly not being used, and rampant mining centralization which makes everyone nervous about making things more difficult for small, independent miners." struggling with 140gb? lol as for mining centralisation.. ASICS DO NOT CONTAIN A HARD DRIVE.. asics will function if there was a 1mb block or a 32mb block.. asics do not see the whole block data!! |
|
|
|
|
block= clump of data collated and organised in a certain way
node=software that checks the data and checks its in a certain way and meets all the rules
there are many different 'brands' of nodes and also different tiers of functionality of nodes.
pool nodes collate the data create a hash and send the hash to asics machines which work to find a special solution to confirm the block(of data) is double secured.
full user nodes. are software the general users can have to validate unconfirmed transactions as they move around the network and also validate the confirmation hash and the block data. aswell as storing all the blocks of data(analogy: torrent seed) that are linked together all the way back to the first block(genesis block) so that other nodes can sync(analogy torrent leacher) their nodes and have the data too
spv nodes. are lite wallets that do not do all the full validation stuff nor store the full blockchain. but they just allow people to make transactions to spend their funds.
there are a few brands of both full user nodes and lite user nodes. and although some people think there should only be one brand that can run, and those people try hard to pressure their centralist beliefs.. the truth is there are many brands of nodes chaining bitcoin blockchain data. and there should continue to be many brands to diversify(part of decentralise) the network
|
|
|
|
|
the healthy middle ground is simple
slap anyone with a wet fish who exaggerates 1mb to become 'gigabytes by midnight' (i mean this comically, not literally)
shake hands with anyone that says logical natural and incremental dynamic changes over time.
these incremental changes would occur by nodes showing what they are capable of and only adjusting to consensus of node capability.
in short. it only grows if nodes say yes without devs needing to puppet control the growth/stalling of the blockchain.
thus the "server farm" fud doomsday wont happen
however
doing things like filtering data, pruning data dilutes the capability/function/effectiveness of a nodes. thus not making it a full node, which is far worse than giving nodes power to decide when the blockchain should grow.
take FIBRE. imagine the only full nodes being FIBRE as the top tier of bitcoin network, controlling what direction the network goes. and the only publicly available codebase nodes are second tier cludgy implementations that have all these pruned, filtered options set.
(warning to fanboys. dont reply purely defending the devs(humans) instead think long and hard about the reality of people using the code/features)
remember if its not a full archival and full validation node. its not a full node.
all this filtering, stripping, bridging, pruning and 'treat as valid' checkpointing. is just ripping the main purposes of decentralised security away and just pretending to be decentralised. when infact its just faking the whole validation process. which in reality is the real threat.
but it takes alot of effort to look beyond the short term/temporary drama of dev's and to think about the long term viability of bitcoin to see that its not who is coding bitcoin, because devs can come and go.. but to see what is happening to the code features devs add which can affect things long term.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
