DDos attack is illegal, for sure! But for the first time Ordinals are getting a taste of their own medicine.
I disagree, Ordinals owner or enthusiast would just visit different ordinals website. What they could gain from DDoS attack? if they didn't hack the smart contract they won't able to access the tokens and make money from it.
I think everyone started their assumption from their hate against ordinals! What makes everyone so sure it's an attack because somebody doesn't like ordinals and not an attack by a group who is in competition with that website? So not an ordinals hater but more like a ordinals minter that wants a bigger pie of the ordinals minting share and inscription traffic? While ordinals.com is first ordinals website created by Casey Rodarmor, it's not really competitive with other website since it lack many features. You can't even manage Ordinals or BRC-20 from ordinals.com. So IMO such reason is unlikely. |
|
|
|
-snip-
Jawaban singkat, serendah mungkin.
Saya masih ragu menetapkan fee lebih rendah daripada yang direkom di situs mempool.space, takutnya butuh hingga berbulan˛ agar bisa dikonfirm jaringan. Itu adalah trade-off jika anda menggunakan fee yang sangat rendah. Disisi lain saya agak bingung dengan rekom fee disana, satu contoh saya memperhatikan detail blok 823100 2 hari yang lalu yang mengatakan Fee span : 23 - 438 sat/vB. Ada satu tx di blok itu (paling bawah 12 dari kiri) yang biayanya 12.7 sat/vB. Saya ingat bahwa kisaran rekom fee saat itu adalah diatas 100 sat/vB, lalu bagaimana tx ini bisa dikonfirm mendahului txs yg punya fee lebih tinggi? adakah yang istimewa dari tx ini? Karena block tersebut dimining oleh pool ViaBTC, kemungkinan besar transaksi tersebut diakselerasi menggunakan jasa akselerasi yang disediakan oleh ViaBTC[1]. [1] https://www.viabtc.com/tools/txaccelerator/ |
|
|
|
--snip--
Thank you for your advise, I just think it's good for BTC ecology, so I want to share it. It's all free, we don't charge anything, just need some transfer fees. Good for BTC ecology? I expect many Bitcoiner disagree and might even flame you for bloating Bitcoin blockchain, especially because Bitcoin whitepaper already in Bitcoin blockchain long time ago. |
|
|
|
What they could gain from DDoS attack?
I'd speculate the attacker want to send certain message (e.g. they hate Ordinals). if they didn't hack the smart contract they won't able to access the tokens and make money from it.
FWIW Bitcoin doesn't have smart contract and token/inscription actually just Bitcoin UTXO. It's also not going to make people can't send their tokens, right?
Yes, there are many other website and wallet which let you interact with Ordinals. |
|
|
|
|
What terrible news. But at least for Bitcoin (and other coin with diminished supply generation) where TX fee will become main miner's income, miner would rather move to different country or shut down their operation rather than operating at loss.
|
|
|
|
Now even the government has identified the BRC-20 bug. In Bitcoin Core through 26.0 and Bitcoin Knots before 25.1.knots20231115, datacarrier size limits can be bypassed by obfuscating data as code (e.g., with OP_FALSE OP_IF), as exploited in the wild by Inscriptions in 2022 and 2023. If you take a closer look, actually that website took information from MITRE. Ordinals are now identified as a vulnerability
Bitcoin Core developer, Luke Dashjr, told his 83,300 followers in a recent tweet on X that inscriptions are exploiting a vulnerability in Bitcoin Core to spam the blockchain. Since 2013, Bitcoin Core allows users to set a limit on the size of extra data in transactions that they relay. Inscriptions bypass this limit and this makes them a “vulnerability.”
Dashjr says that Bitcoin Core is still vulnerable in the upcoming v26 release and the developer hopes to finally fix the issue before v27 next year. https://www.fxstreet.com/cryptocurrencies/news/bitcoin-core-developer-calls-ordinals-a-vulnerability-for-the-btc-blockchain-202312101100They are finally going to end this vulnerability! Have you read discussion on GitHub Bitcoin Core, https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408? Even if it's merged, it wont completely stop Ordinals TX. |
|
|
|
You seem to be familiar with making acceleration requests on the service board (at least you did in 2018). I'd suggest you continue posting there instead. Be careful since some are probably scamming you and just use a public tool like what has been shared above.
I'd go as far as assuming all of them are not legit, unless they can provide proof they can directly submit TX to certain mining pool. I recall some of them already got negative trust since they expect tip/donation when they only use free public tool. |
|
|
|
--snip--
The problem, we can say, is when mass adoption is done. 10 years ago, no one thought of having this level of transaction fees. With the same line of reasoning: we will want to adopt BTC. I wouldn't worry about it. With many possible route option, i expect some LN node operator will set fee as low as possible (without running at loss) in order to see some transaction routed through them rather than almost nobody doing that. At least I don't see that the LN solution will really solve the issue of fees, because this network has low fees today, due to low adoption.
Or rather, LN alone isn't enough to solve issue about fee and TPS. |
|
|
|
--snip--
Is this AI generated text? While it sounds convincing, it has several wrong details such as this one, #### 2. Create a New Receiving Address:
Generate a new Taproot receiving address using the `getnewaddress` command:
```bash
bitcoin-cli getnewaddress "" "taproot"
```
Note the generated Taproot address; this will be your receiving address.
"taproot" isn't valid value for second parameter. It should be "bech32m". 2. address_type (string, optional, default=set by -addresstype) The address type to use. Options are "legacy", "p2sh-segwit", "bech32", and "bech32m".
|
|
|
|
Plugging USB sticks back and fourth is quite hard to decide if it passes the test, because it does not connect the computer to a network, but it might be able to infect it somehow if the network connected one injects a malware. Maybe a security expert can clears this out.
On Linux, you could explicitt disable autorun when you plug USB drive and use noexec flag when mount the drive to partially prevent binary on that drive being run[1]. [1] https://superuser.com/a/1276936 |
|
|
|
Menurut kalian bagaimana tanggapannya serta bagi yang cukup paham pertambangan Bitcoin mungkin bisa memberikan gambaran berapa total kiranya keuntungan yang telah mereka hasilkan.
Berita tersebut tidak menyebutkan merek dan tipe ASIC yang digunakan ataupun total watt yang digunakan, sehingga saya tidak bisa melakukan estimasi total Bitcoin yang bisa didapatkan. Jadi, apakah nantinya penyedik akan menjual Bitcoin yang disita akan di lelang, dimusnahkan atau justru dijual dan hasilnya masuk ke kas negara?
Karena ASIC dan Bitcoin bukan hal yang ilegal, menurut saya kedua hal tersebut akan dilelang. |
|
|
|
If you need to wipe 100% your keys, you can do it because it's an HDD. SD cards or usb sticks or SSD drives would make you paranoid that there was a way to recover keys. Unlikely if you use FDE but still. Since you don't need to sync the blockchain on your HDD, it doesn't matter that it's slower, it's just to store keys and sign tx's, so an HDD is good to go, that is why im asking, what would be a good one to buy. Also, if you use Bitcoin Core as wallet, you need the actual file.
Brute-forcing both FDE and wallet file are practically impossible task though. No sane people would bother do that, unless they assume you use relative-weak password. And if you have backup elsewhere, you can move your Bitcoin as soon as you can do it. |
|
|
|
Thanks for the link. Although it's not directly comparable since bitnodes.io show number of total reachable nodes in last few hours while monero.fail shows total reachable nodes in last 2 weeks. yeah true, however it looks to me if monero has same TPS as bitcoin it would still be quite a lot cheaper with dynamic block sizes
I don't think dynamic block help much since what matters most is how much transaction created by Monero users. |
|
|
|
3. But with increased usage, there'll more route where your LN wallet choose route with lowest fee.
And do you think that channel/node managers, if they can earn $1/transaction, will keep $0.05?  You can have thousands of channels, without a doubt, but everyone will seek to obtain the greatest profitability from having equipment connected 24 hours a day to keep the channels open. In addition to the obligation to keep Bitcoin staked in these channels. That sounds very pessimistic. I expect channel/node run by average Bitcoiner or some LN enthusiast is less likely to set high fees due to either they don't know they can set routing fees or LN enthusiast wish for wider LN adaption. And depending on your usage, routing isn't needed at all. |
|
|
|
But aside from BCH, most other fork only join hype ride where people got excited from obtaining "free" forked coin.
I wasn't into bitcoin when the Bitcoin Cash split occurred, but I had heard about Roger Ver promoting it as if he was the main entity. Was he hyping it similarly to Craig and BSV? IIRC it's not as bad as faketoshi/BSV does. Although at that time you frequently see claim BCH is true Bitcoin, misleading newcomers to buy BCH when they actually want to buy BTC and use abbreviation "Bitcoin Core (BTC)" which is ridiculous. And FWIW BSV is BCH fork. The current fees aren't as high as many believe them to be. If you look at Mempool, that's one picture, whereas websites tracking average transaction fees report significantly higher figures, and some people simply follow what they see as average from those websites, overpaying for transactions. Then there are fee recommendations by wallets, and Electrum tends to recommend me around $10 as a minimum (ETA), whereas people often pay the maximum.
The fee situation isn't great, but it's perceived to be worse than it really is because of such things.
Some people isn't patient either, so it's not surprising they pay high for fast confirmation. Meanwhile some wallet or service simply set high fees since they'd rather see people complain about high fees rather than their TX unconfirmed for some time. |
|
|
|
And as i stated on different thread, not many people bother opening LN channel when it costs them several dollars to do so.
If you have a business that depends on making several Bitcoin transactions a day, and you're stuck in a high fee environment that appears to be prolonged, wouldn't it be more cost efficient to pay a really big fee once rather than several big fees for an indeterminate amount of time? Several major exchanges will swap your BTC for LN or Liquid BTC for a zero % charge. That's true, but i also expect not many Bitcoiner create lots of Bitcoin transaction. Aside from business, i expect only daily trader would take benefit from using LN. I very much like the sarcasm of that guy. What really irks me lately on this forum is some sheeple acceptance of everything, hundreds clapping for the rules, obey the rules, we must wait for the others to take a decision, a lot of fake unicorn farts drug induce stance where we should all act like sheep and wait peacefully while grassing out faith, not daring to come out and say: THIS IS F*** UP! Because, we are all upset. I mean, who could have predicted that a wave of dumbasses would flow the mempool with gigabytes of crap images, deeming the on-chain transactions useless? I'm pretty confident we all expected Ordinals to have ended months now, but hey; it's close to a year and people still buy that nonsense. Unbelievable. Rising the block size in a regulated manner to make this "confiscation" of block space more expensive sounds like a valid argument, but you were here in 2015-2017. Wanna repeat the era that gave birth to every failed fork of Bitcoin? I would rather not. But aside from BCH, most other fork only join hype ride where people got excited from obtaining "free" forked coin. |
|
|
|
Edit: Here's current report result. 2 Good, 1 Unhandled and 1 Bad. None of them got banned or nuked. If we want to see those user got banned or nuked, i expect we'll need separate thread which contain more detailed report/explanation.
It is unexpected that they weren't left having one single topic per user for their ads. Not banning is something expected as their topics are in the correct section, but having so many topics per each looks like spam. If they had just one per one web site, it would look more expected... And these examples is just the tip of the iceberg... Yeah, they should only create only 1 thread/topic for their website/service. Although today there are 2 changes from my previous update. |
|
|
|
No need to rely on any third party blockchain explorers. Way better privacy!
Yeh. But it very slow to query this rpc call to local bitcoin core. Is any way to improve bitcoin core response time for this type of query? Thanks. You either must, 1. Add that address to wallet so it'll be indexed by Bitcoin Core. First rescan is slow, but afterwards you only need to use wallet RPC call. 2. Run either self-hosted Electrum server or block-explorer which index all Bitcoin address. |
|
|
|
Even more of them if full nodes start rejecting the Ordinals Attack and the scammers are forced to use third party software to circumvent a lot of stuff... I don't believe you can stop this without messing with consensus rules. Standardness isn't going to help. Binance essentially funds this, and Binance is literally mining. Newbies can buy and sell this nonsense using third parties, and maybe at this time it'll be worse, because we will have an inaccurate mempool. At very least, creating and trading Ordinals would be more difficult or annoying. Some people would either give up or pay more to miner/pool to see their TX included which should reduce total Ordinals transaction. I guess they'll change it again, but probably not during the holidays. If they don't upgrade the captcha, they can just as well end their free accelerator.
If they change the captcha, those spammers will probably find a way to bypass the captcha again. They may add an extra requirement and not allow transactions that create output worth less than a certain amount to be submitted to their free accelerator. They really should switch to different captcha provider which let owner of the website set captcha difficulty to very high. |
|
|
|
|
I re-read OP's statement few times and it seems he wants 2 portable HDD contain bootable OS. One of them used while connected to internet, while one other isn't. And it seems OP only plug one of them to the laptop at a time. While i don't know which portable HDD definitely don't have dodgy firmware, i believe he should get portable HDD that is protected against water, shock and others.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
