<sigh>
Alright, I'll explain the mechanics as best as I can remember the details. I could easily get the actual numbers wrong, but this is basicly how the system works.
The transaction queue in the bitcoin client is ordered by points, not the order of arrival. There are two ways to get points, you can buy them or wait them out. When you pay a fee, you're effectively buying enough points to reach the minimum number of points to get processed, because no transaction gets processed before it has enough points. IIRC, one satoshi = one point, and the minimu fee is the minimum number of points required to process immediately. Of course, free transactions can get processed as long as it has enough points. Any transaction that has it's YOUNGEST input transaction old enough to have enough points gets processed, at one point per block. For example, if I didn't use my wallet for several weeks, my free transaction might still end up with more points than your minimum fee transactions based upon a brand new input transaction. But in addition to that, no transaction that has not had it's inputs processed can have any points at all, regardless of the fee, because the network won't even recognize your #2 transaction until the inputs from #1 are processed. So no matter how many wallet.dat files you're using to do it, your processed transaction input are finite, and I would stil be able to get my transaction based upon a 3 week old input through before your 1 second old transaction with a fee, unless and until you were willing to increase your fee significantly. No matter how you do it, your spamming costs you an exponentially increasing amount of money to maintain, and since most users don't need to have their transactions processed in less than an hour anyway, most users wouldn't even notice your efforts.
I actually know all these points, thats why i said that you start from a single wallet with enough founds that you don't need to use any fund twice. If we need 90 BTC per day to occupy all slots, we can buy/collect 1800 BTC and just let them sit for a/couple months and then just"freeze" the network for 20 consecutive days. Most people won't have a problem with 1 hour waiting time, but if their transactions are held in limbo for 2 weeks, they WILL mind. You're still overlooking a critical point that I've mentioned three times. No matter how long you age your wallet.dat file(s), the number of independent & processed transactions in those files are finite. As soon as you run out of aged transactions to use, you are immediately dependent upon the first set of transactions being processed before your second set can even buy their way in; so you can make all your transactions in advance and hit the network all at once, and your second wave is still denpendt upon the first wave beign processed in a timely manner. And even if you succeed at that, your second wave doesn't have any age advantage anymore. You're second wave woudl require a significantly higher fee in order to trump my older transaction, more so if I choose to include a fee myself. If I'm in a hurry and see that the network is jammed, I can easily outbid your per transaction fee to get through. It's a self regulating system, yo ucan only make it cost more until you run out of funds. You can never completely deny service to other users, even for a short time. I think you don't read my posts at all. I have accounted for that. In my example we start with 1800 BTC, that is enough to send 12.000.000 Transactions WITHOUT USING A SINGLE INPUT/OUTPUT TWICE! Those 1800 BTC are enough to last for 20 consecutive days. That is MORE than a short time... Okay, but even if you have that much to blow, as soon as you begin you just drive up the price. I can still outbid your per transaction fee if I need to get something done sooner rather than later. And if you do try this, most users would learn pretty fast that the delays were due to a transaction spam attack, and either increase their fees or wait you out. Either way, this doesn't have any real effect upon the price of bitcoin. And when I say I can outbid you, I mean I know I can outbid you, personally. I actually have access to a storage wallet with ages over two years and counting. I'm sure I'm not alone. Once again, go ahead and try it. Either way, you'll be remembered for it. You can outbid me because you have such an old wallet, others might read about it and increase their sending fee. BUT the majority of transactions use the formula where for every 1 kb 0.0001 Fee is applied. So all automated transactions would come to a halt and most user transactions. I still think that this is a risk we have to completely solve, but it is not as severe as i thought. Thank you for the discussion btw! |
|
|
|
<sigh>
Alright, I'll explain the mechanics as best as I can remember the details. I could easily get the actual numbers wrong, but this is basicly how the system works.
The transaction queue in the bitcoin client is ordered by points, not the order of arrival. There are two ways to get points, you can buy them or wait them out. When you pay a fee, you're effectively buying enough points to reach the minimum number of points to get processed, because no transaction gets processed before it has enough points. IIRC, one satoshi = one point, and the minimu fee is the minimum number of points required to process immediately. Of course, free transactions can get processed as long as it has enough points. Any transaction that has it's YOUNGEST input transaction old enough to have enough points gets processed, at one point per block. For example, if I didn't use my wallet for several weeks, my free transaction might still end up with more points than your minimum fee transactions based upon a brand new input transaction. But in addition to that, no transaction that has not had it's inputs processed can have any points at all, regardless of the fee, because the network won't even recognize your #2 transaction until the inputs from #1 are processed. So no matter how many wallet.dat files you're using to do it, your processed transaction input are finite, and I would stil be able to get my transaction based upon a 3 week old input through before your 1 second old transaction with a fee, unless and until you were willing to increase your fee significantly. No matter how you do it, your spamming costs you an exponentially increasing amount of money to maintain, and since most users don't need to have their transactions processed in less than an hour anyway, most users wouldn't even notice your efforts.
I actually know all these points, thats why i said that you start from a single wallet with enough founds that you don't need to use any fund twice. If we need 90 BTC per day to occupy all slots, we can buy/collect 1800 BTC and just let them sit for a/couple months and then just"freeze" the network for 20 consecutive days. Most people won't have a problem with 1 hour waiting time, but if their transactions are held in limbo for 2 weeks, they WILL mind. You're still overlooking a critical point that I've mentioned three times. No matter how long you age your wallet.dat file(s), the number of independent & processed transactions in those files are finite. As soon as you run out of aged transactions to use, you are immediately dependent upon the first set of transactions being processed before your second set can even buy their way in; so you can make all your transactions in advance and hit the network all at once, and your second wave is still denpendt upon the first wave beign processed in a timely manner. And even if you succeed at that, your second wave doesn't have any age advantage anymore. You're second wave woudl require a significantly higher fee in order to trump my older transaction, more so if I choose to include a fee myself. If I'm in a hurry and see that the network is jammed, I can easily outbid your per transaction fee to get through. It's a self regulating system, yo ucan only make it cost more until you run out of funds. You can never completely deny service to other users, even for a short time. I think you don't read my posts at all. I have accounted for that. In my example we start with 1800 BTC, that is enough to send 12.000.000 Transactions WITHOUT USING A SINGLE INPUT/OUTPUT TWICE! Those 1800 BTC are enough to last for 20 consecutive days. That is MORE than a short time... |
|
|
|
|
It is NOT an online wallet.
|
|
|
|
|
You will probably see no single penny/bitcent
|
|
|
|
<sigh>
Alright, I'll explain the mechanics as best as I can remember the details. I could easily get the actual numbers wrong, but this is basicly how the system works.
The transaction queue in the bitcoin client is ordered by points, not the order of arrival. There are two ways to get points, you can buy them or wait them out. When you pay a fee, you're effectively buying enough points to reach the minimum number of points to get processed, because no transaction gets processed before it has enough points. IIRC, one satoshi = one point, and the minimu fee is the minimum number of points required to process immediately. Of course, free transactions can get processed as long as it has enough points. Any transaction that has it's YOUNGEST input transaction old enough to have enough points gets processed, at one point per block. For example, if I didn't use my wallet for several weeks, my free transaction might still end up with more points than your minimum fee transactions based upon a brand new input transaction. But in addition to that, no transaction that has not had it's inputs processed can have any points at all, regardless of the fee, because the network won't even recognize your #2 transaction until the inputs from #1 are processed. So no matter how many wallet.dat files you're using to do it, your processed transaction input are finite, and I would stil be able to get my transaction based upon a 3 week old input through before your 1 second old transaction with a fee, unless and until you were willing to increase your fee significantly. No matter how you do it, your spamming costs you an exponentially increasing amount of money to maintain, and since most users don't need to have their transactions processed in less than an hour anyway, most users wouldn't even notice your efforts.
I actually know all these points, thats why i said that you start from a single wallet with enough founds that you don't need to use any fund twice. If we need 90 BTC per day to occupy all slots, we can buy/collect 1800 BTC and just let them sit for a/couple months and then just"freeze" the network for 20 consecutive days. Most people won't have a problem with 1 hour waiting time, but if their transactions are held in limbo for 2 weeks, they WILL mind. |
|
|
|
Hey Dumbass OP,
You do realize that you are advocating destroying a value system that measures its value with in multiples of BILLIONS OF USD?
Do you really want to convince some powerful people that you are a threat to their years of work and wealth?
Not very conducive to a long and healthy life.
You might want to rethink this "Guide"
~BCX~
You know that if you keep silent about a possible exploit in a system, that this bug doesn't go away from its own? I just want to see a fix before someone decides to exploit that. |
|
|
|
You say that so many have tried. How many managed to get the TPS above 10?
If you are producing 14 tps from the same wallet.dat file, it's impossible for them to not be dependent upon each other. So your first transaction must be processed before your 2nd, and so on. You don't introduce a condition that you can delay anyone but yourself, althoug you can still manage to spend fees pretty fast. You can set up a couple of nodes and with enough BTC in stock you can always send fresh satoshis + the minfee. At some point, multiple wallet.dat files repeatedly sending each other transactions still become dependent upon one another. The same thing would happen if every user on the system were repeatedly sending each other transactions, and that is the point. The delays protect the system regardless of where the delays originate. If the delays are truely legitimate, then yes the network can get bogged down, which is why the network will favor higher fees for short term processing. If you need that kind of speed, you can pay for it. But there is no one with enough money that can screw the system over for any significant period of time. [/quote] That is just your assumption and it think it is not true. Lets do the math on this again. We send EVERYTHING from one wallet! 600.000 Transactions per day. 0.0001 Fee + 0.00005000 amount = 600000*0.00015 = 90 BTC needed in that wallet at the start of the day. That hardly seems impossible, and there is ZERO conflict |
|
|
|
Even if this was possible what woud you do to prevent it?
Increase the max blocksize and introduce a methode to bootsstrap the blockchain, so that it doesn't bloat They are already working on both of those issues. Go help them. I am currently not capable of doing so. But back to the topic, is this following statement true? "It is possible to slow down the processing time of transactions with this attack, although it is extremly expensive and not very practicable." No it is not true. then tell me why, because the explanation from before is not enough. |
|
|
|
If you are producing 14 tps from the same wallet.dat file, it's impossible for them to not be dependent upon each other. So your first transaction must be processed before your 2nd, and so on. You don't introduce a condition that you can delay anyone but yourself, althoug you can still manage to spend fees pretty fast.
You can set up a couple of nodes and with enough BTC in stock you can always send fresh satoshis + the minfee. |
|
|
|
Even if this was possible what woud you do to prevent it?
Increase the max blocksize and introduce a methode to bootsstrap the blockchain, so that it doesn't bloat They are already working on both of those issues. Go help them. I am currently not capable of doing so. But back to the topic, is this following statement true? "It is possible to slow down the processing time of transactions with this attack, although it is extremly expensive and not very practicable." |
|
|
|
Even if this was possible what woud you do to prevent it?
Increase the max blocksize and introduce a methode to bootsstrap the blockchain, so that it doesn't bloat |
|
|
|
Others have tried this. I welcome you to blow all your funds on the attempt. The miners will appriciate the donation, and you will quickly learn that you can't really outrun the bitcoin network. Have fun!
Well, lets do some math on this: Current network can handle 7 TPS. Let us assume that 1 TPS is happening independent of our spam. That leaves us with 6*60*60*24 = 518400 Transactions per day Min fee is 0.0001 --> 518400*0.0001= 51,84 BTC/day Now lets say that we are a highroller that wants: - this method of attack fixed - wants to buy cheap within the panic selloff 1 day Network stillstand for ~60 BTC doesn't seem too expensive does it? It's not a problem. Spamming the network with valid transactions is not a valid attack vector. When the developers say that the network can presently handle 7 tps, they mean that is how fast the network can process them. The network doesn't have to process the 8th transaction per second, it can simply ignore it, which is what it does. It happens all of the time, in fact. If you don't add a fee, your transaction is the first to be ignored as a matter of principle. If you add a minimum fee, your transaction is the first among the fee paying transactions in the queue to be ignored in favor of higher fees. It's a bidding market, dude. If the network is under stress, the cost of a transaction being processed sooner rather than later increases, and the lower fee paying transactions have to wait for the network to catch up. If your transaction is ingored for two weeks, it disappears from the queue and you have to resend it. Furthurmore, if you send a transaction that is dependent upon another one being processed first, the second one doesn't even propagate across the network at all, because any node besides your modified client will consider it invalid until the preceeding transaction makes it into a block. Really, you can't break this thing. So many before you have tried, using values when the value of a bitcoin was still under a nickel. Your 60 BTC example isn't shit. There, are you ready to send me my 30 BTC consultation fee yet? Or do you need more? But you say it yourself, the 8th transaction per second gets ignored. If 1 of 8 transactions is a legit one, than there is a 12.5% chance that everyone that wants to send something gets ignored. If we spam 14 TPS than that increases to 50% at no additional cost for the spammer. (the ignored transactions are just reversed, no fee paid) Also @ bidding market, you can also increase the fee of the spam, this makes the attack more expensive, but in the end you can make a big profit if you are a highroller. You say that so many have tried. How many managed to get the TPS above 10? |
|
|
|
satoshi dice already tried this with very small amounts of satoshi's. yet my coins sending to exchanges, friends, and people i invested in still reached the recipients ontime.
now with the 5k satoshi dust limit. to attempt to repeat such a task you would need to spend
5k sat x 7 per second for 600 seconds
my maths makes that 0.21000000 btc every 10 minutes. are you truly saying that you wish to spend $200 every 10 minutes, purely to delay transactions. and if so, how long could you hold on and continue such a practice knowing that your transaction fee's would slowly eat up all your coin.
wouldnt it be more beneficial to use bitcoin instead of abuse bitcoin?
I posted my math above, but you don't "spend" 5k satoshis in addition to the fee. You just send to an address you control. My guess is, if the whole network isn't able to spend their coins for X days, then people would get panicy on the exchanges and you could make a fortune with betting against BTC. |
|
|
|
Why are people so interested in destroying Bitcoin? Now that Bitcoin has grown its stronger than ever.
I don't want to destroy it, i want the problems fixed because i have a fairly huge stack of those coins myself! |
|
|
|
Others have tried this. I welcome you to blow all your funds on the attempt. The miners will appriciate the donation, and you will quickly learn that you can't really outrun the bitcoin network. Have fun!
Well, lets do some math on this: Current network can handle 7 TPS. Let us assume that 1 TPS is happening independent of our spam. That leaves us with 6*60*60*24 = 518400 Transactions per day Min fee is 0.0001 --> 518400*0.0001= 51,84 BTC/day Now lets say that we are a highroller that wants: - this method of attack fixed - wants to buy cheap within the panic selloff 1 day Network stillstand for ~60 BTC doesn't seem too expensive does it? |
|
|
|
If it was this easy, people would have done it already.
Where is my missconception? |
|
|
|
1. Aquire some BTC 2. Setup a node and write a software that can mass-send transactions. 3. Send BTC between your own accounts using the minimum fee (or slightly above) 4. Send more transactions per second than the network can handle. 7 TPS at start, 70 TPS later, XXX TPS in the future. 5. Watch as the network struggles with including transactions into blocks. 6. See the value plumment and all people cry  |
|
|
|
I opened a new account for the first two times with 5.10 a few hours ago. I just upgraded to 5.11 and reopened it just now to try and get the alias after James sent it some NXT. It is showing zero balance with block 55052 as the last block with a 1 hr plus gap between 55052 and 55051. Suggestions?
Post 55052 and 55051 blocks data. And pm me with the account number. 55052 16147959847405150404 1/31/2014 11:31:58 AM 34 56'919 + 51 4'451 B 2 8058897410386517129 3798658 % 55051 4598502818845733792 1/31/2014 10:19:24 AM 5 0 + 5 670 B 2 2086456349684390030 1899329 % Account number on the way via PM. I can't catch up with 5.10. Had to upgrade to 5.11, now runs like a charm! |
|
|
|
|
bump for account security
|
|
|
|
|
you have a big missconception.
If you mine for a rare element and your cost of mining it is lower than the price of this element, than you wouldn't want to continue mining it, right? So if some people stop mining it, the difficulty decreases and it will be more intresting to mine for the MOST profitable miners. Thus the price of the element dictates WHO can mine profitable, but the price is NOT dictated by the mining cost.
It is a simple case of supply and demand.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
