Bitcoin Forum
May 30, 2016, 04:23:42 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.12.1 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 [35] 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 ... 970 »
681  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 09, 2015, 03:01:29 PM
Unfortunately, the majority in the blocks I checked earlier today have been the DOS attack-- e.g. transactions tracable from outputs of this transaction https://blockchain.info/tx/3bad15167c60de483cd32cb990d1e46f0a0d8ab380e3fc1cace01afc9c1bb5af  and a few others. ... though the attack style has been shifting to evade filtering by miners.

The change mentioned in the chat above is https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/3305 (you might find the comments there interesting), it's one of Mikes couple contributions to Bitcoin Core.

So miners are filtering out the spam? What are they filtering for?

good question.  how do they distinguish? 

like i said above, w/o a block size cap, spam fees can actually pay to help grow the network and user base long term before it dies off. 
682  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 09, 2015, 02:46:24 PM
Jeff Garzik has just posted 2 pull requests for bitcoin core on github:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6405
Remove TX priority and free transaction area from mempool, block creator.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6402
Floating network relay fee increase, if memory pool grows too large.

the latter will introduce, if merged, "a relay fee that adjusts to floods
which cause the memory pool to grow too large".

It seems that core devs start becoming aware of the lack of
of economic incentives for services provided by full nodes.


i hate to bring up an analogy from medicine since it may not be appropriate but i'll try nonetheless.

one of the greatest things i learned during my internship btwn med school and residency in eyes, is that too much intervention can cause problems for patients.  every 3 mo i'd rotate onto a new ward with responsibilities for about a couple of dozen gorked out patients.  i say gorked out b/c invariably all of them had at least a dozen meds onboard for a variety of reasons most of which had to do with sedation, pain, or anti-anxiety.  problem was, these meds unbeknownst to their previous physicians were preventing these ppl from getting better.  this was a repeating problem.  so the first thing i would do would be to cocentrate on stripping off as many of these unnecessary meds as possible.  much to everyone's amazement, these pts would perk up, turn around and start walking again, interacting with staff, feeling better, be more alert, and generally just get better to the pt i could discharge them.  and this experience happened over and over for me.  twas a great personal accomplishment for me and one i will never forget; don't over do it.

pt being, i still think the block size cap is the fundamental problem here.  more rules and limits that core dev piles on simply complicates the code and makes it more complex.  if anything, we should be stripping off rules and limits so that the free mkt can come to bear on many of these problems we are currently seeing.  the miners and users are perfectly capable of regulating the size of blocks and fees on their own.  if we lift the cap, the spam can actually help the network.  as long as spammers have to pay fees any spam attempts will line the pockets of miners and go back to growing the hashrate.  that would be a good thing and the last thing the spammers want to do.  no doubt they will try at first so we should expect even greater higher level attacks initially but in the long run, they will die off.  that's b/c their real objective is to disrupt new user growth which w/o a cap will be short circuited.  any further spam then will just help the tx mkt to grow, miners to profit, and yes, full nodes will eventually develop their own fee mkt too.  yes, full node capacities will have to grow but that should be viewed as a good thing b/c on the other end that will mean that miners are prospering (which is ok Greg) and user growth will be skyrocketing along with the price.  more merchants will come on board with new user growth and they will want and probably have a fiduciary responsibility to run their own full nodes which will add to network capacity.

so strip off rules and limits within reason, not add, and let BitcoinRun!
683  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 09, 2015, 04:27:03 AM
When miner's mempool exceeds block size by some backlog factor, they need to send out a message to the peers they are connected to saying "don't propagate transactions to me with smaller than X fee per kilobyte until further notice". This will mitigate the impact that spam-that-can-never-be-added-to-a-block can have on the network, but it won't entirely eliminate it, because as the mempool backlog reduces, the miner will need to back off the notice to some unknown lower fee threshold. The miner could guess but it will never be 100% accurate. So spam will get verified and rejected. But perhaps those estimates can be close enough that the losses the spammers takes in fees for transactions it sends that do get into a block will be greater than the gains it values from effective spamming (what ever those gains are  Huh). Appears to me the issue can be fixed.

Afaik, the reason incoming transactions are verified before it is known whether they will be in a new block, is because it is considered spam to propagate (send out again to another peer) invalid transactions that would be rejected and never appear in a block.

gmax already told us to use minrelaytxfee.
684  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 09, 2015, 03:59:27 AM
all the yearly silver and mining stocks have that sick top left to bottom right chart configuration. this is a horrible leading indicator for both gold and stocks:

silver futures:



SLW:



PAAS:



silverbox's GPL:

685  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 09, 2015, 02:55:42 AM
I just want to highlight the comments here from bitcoin-dev today, which seem to indicate that these spamming attacks would have been 5.5x more expensive if a dust threshold software change had not been made. Perhaps there are deeper insights someone else has on this...?

Quote
16:53   wangchun   why can those spam get confirmed. 0.00001 BTC vout below dust threshold right?
16:54   phantomcircuit   wangchun, iirc the dust threshold is 546 satoshis
16:54   wangchun   not 5460 satoshis? changed?
16:54   aschildbach   wangchun: Yes it was cut by 10 a few months ago.

i don't think it really matters, does it?

since most of the mined blocks are filled with real demand trying to get into blocks with or without spamming, the only difference being that with spamming the real demand has to pay significantly higher fees to get in, the cost to fill up the rest of the block with spam is minimal as is the minimal cost to bloat the mempool to extraordinary levels (94K 0confs as i write).  i say minimal cost for the mempool b/c most of it gets turned over after 24h deletion allowing that spam to be recycled w/o having to pay.
686  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 09, 2015, 02:12:12 AM
The point I'm trying to make is that if CreateNewBlock is super-linear in mempool size, then it would not be surprising to see more empty blocks (what Cypher was calling "defensive blocks") when mempool swells (the miners are mining on an empty block for longer while waiting for CreateNewBlock to finish).  This was Cypher's point from the very beginning that many people, including myself, were suggesting was probably not the case!  

that is exactly what i was saying w/o knowing anything about CNB.  it was just intuitive that constructing a new block would take longer for a large mempool so i deduced that a miner might decide "f*ck it" that he doesn't want to not only spend additional time validating a large incoming block but also not want to spend additional time creating a large new block so instead just automatically switch to 0 block mining upon arrival of a large block.  the thing none of us anticipated was that he would not validate that incoming large block at all and switch to SPV mining while >50% of the network would also be SPV mining (Discus, Antpool, BTCGuild) and trigger an invalid SPV longest chain.

that's some wild shit going on.

given this newly recognized scenario, i still conclude however that this is all a result of the block size limit being hit continuously by attacking spammers and secondarily intentionally causing a bloated mempool which then causes these unanticipated defensive strategies and more intentionally, user disruption.
687  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 08, 2015, 08:08:33 PM
the ongoing spam shows clearly that all full nodes are handling the traffic just fine. We were told that they would crash and burn from overloaded memory if we were foolhardy enough to implement Gavin's arbitrary, rushed, poorly-researched plan for 20MB blocks.

^Fixted for you.

The real shame is that they've been forced to do ask the validation and store it in mempool waiting for blocks that never come because of the 1MB cap. What a waste but it shows that the capacity of the network is far higher than we've been told.

If you look at the stream  of full blocks going by, to me I see miners begging to be able to process bigger blocks to clear their mempools. That would force the spammers losses and eventually kill him. 

Mempool is full of tx waiting to be (slowly, thanks to completely unoptimized Createnewblock) processed into new blocks.

The blocks are then propagated (slowly thanks to limited/expensive upstream bandwidth), and (eventually, thanks to slow ECDSA and quadratic scaling) validated by the receivers.

Validation is not done in mempool, as gmax and others have tried to explain to you, without success and at the cost of your remaining credibility.


The network will upgrade as a result of new user growth that the spammer can no longer disrupt. Meanwhile, the spammer gets taken out to the wood shed and gets raped. She won't be coming back.

The network does not distinguish between new users and old users.  More users will include more spammers.

Wow, you've really gone off the deep end today.  Consider a vacation, or therapy.  It's not healthy for a man of your considerable age/education/income/stature to talk like a poorly disciplined young teen on their X-Box Halo chat.



All that slowness you're referring to results in the spam being deleted after 24 hours allowing recycling of the fees while still disrupting usage.
688  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 08, 2015, 07:37:49 PM
Whole network must upgrade. So spammer spend $1200 but bitcoin network 10x more on upgrade,

You must have quoted my post before I updated it with the new table to estimate the cost to the network that you were referring.  I think "10x more" is an overstatement.  It still looks like it costs the spammer more than the network as a whole [blue column] if we write the spam to the blockchain, even though I think the relevant cost is the cost per node:



Spammer only spends money 1x during lifetime, but miner has to keep bigger disk-space forever (2 hard disc consume more electricity than single one)

So what, without a cap miner will get paid to do it. And profit and get stronger which is the last thing the spammer wants especially since he can no longer disrupt the user growth which will, in the meantime, lead to squaring of the networks value (price) according to Metcalfe Law.
689  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 08, 2015, 07:30:38 PM
Why would the cost to a particular node depend on the number of nodes?

lol, do we have single centralized server ?

We don't.
But why should a single node owner pay for the storage used by every other node in the network, instead of bearing just its share ?
Because that's what it looks you're implying...




Whole network must upgrade. So spammer spend $1200 but bitcoin network 10x more on upgrade,

The network will upgrade as a result of new user growth that the spammer can no longer disrupt. Meanwhile, the spammer gets taken out to the wood shed and gets raped. She won't be coming back.
690  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 08, 2015, 07:26:12 PM
A block cap doesn't discourage spam; it encourages it. That's because not only is it a target to cause congestion but the attacker knows he can congest nodes that process the spam immediately upon receipt and then store it in memory waiting for a block that never comes. Since unconfirmed TX's get deleted from mempool after 24 hours, the spam costs him nothing while at the same time disrupting user experience and growth.

What a deal. 
691  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 08, 2015, 07:12:30 PM
Spam tx's are by definition economic transactions someone finds inappropriate, and individual judgments calls are not part of the protocol, that's bitcoin

Miners can choose what to include in the blocks they build.

anyway to say 6 years after bitcoin has grown that storing transactions and blocks for ever should change is not keeping with the idea that is Bitcoin.  

OK. I'm not sure anyone suggested otherwise.

Don't forget that with pruning you'll be able to trim your node if you want while turning the full validation over to specialized nodes.

I think bandwidth is a bigger issue than storage costs. Pruning does nothing for bandwidth.

Yes, but the ongoing spam shows clearly that all full nodes are handling the traffic just fine. We were told that they would crash and burn from overloaded memory. Not true.

The real shame is that they've been forced to do ask the validation and store it in mempool waiting for blocks that never come because of the 1MB cap. What a waste but it shows that the capacity of the network is far higher than we've been told.

If you look at the stream  of full blocks going by, to me I see miners begging to be able to process bigger blocks to clear their mempools. That would force the spammers losses and eventually kill him. 
692  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 08, 2015, 06:39:33 PM
Spam tx's are by definition economic transactions someone finds inappropriate, and individual judgments calls are not part of the protocol, that's bitcoin

Miners can choose what to include in the blocks they build.

anyway to say 6 years after bitcoin has grown that storing transactions and blocks for ever should change is not keeping with the idea that is Bitcoin.  

OK. I'm not sure anyone suggested otherwise.

Don't forget that with pruning you'll be able to trim your node if you want while turning the full validation over to specialized nodes.
693  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 08, 2015, 06:16:13 PM
#Chinameltdown  The end of Chinese false economic prosperity (Austrian perspective)

#EconomicCrisisIsOver  US Mint Runs Out Of Silver On Same Day Price Of Silver Plunges To 2015 Lows


The 'spam issue' in Bitcoin will never be fixed (as you define it) because demand for space in the Mother of all Blockchains will always exceed supply.

Soon, wallets will support dynamic intelli-fees and fancy RBF whatnot.

In the mean time, pay 25 cents or a dollar for higher verification priority if you don't want your tx stuck.

If that's too much money for some broke cheapskates, fuck'em.  They aren't bringing "economic activity" (beyond subsidized freeloading) to Bitcoin in the first place.

Quote
@pierre_rochard

Those who would give up essential Decentralization, to purchase a little temporary Adoption, deserve neither Decentralization nor Adoption.


Quoting Rochard is the worst thing you could do besides flapping your own lips.
694  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 08, 2015, 06:14:10 PM
It really behooves everyone to read and carefully digest the principles in this thread:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3chtdp/the_blocksize_cap_is_basically_worthless_for/
695  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 08, 2015, 06:07:42 PM
look at this.  80K unconf tx's and 6.76TPS and yet gmax et al says there's no problem.  all that wasted computational work done by full nodes for blocks that will never clear those unconf tx's.  i told you long ago these guys will never even be able to recognize a problem even when it's staring them in the face and even after it's beat them over the head:

So the fix is to happily write these 80k spam transactions into the permanent ledger that we (full nodes) have to keep a copy of forever?

Yes, initially.

After some volatility and after the spammers figure out they can't jack the mempool anymore the attacks should stop.

someone did a calculation:

For example, with 100mb blocks, forcing average transaction fees up to only $0.06 over the course of a year would genuinely cost an attacker over $1billion.

Did he calculate how much will cost memory to keep this spam ?

Your missing the point that the spammer wouldn't even try it at that cost.

If your calculation is right then using 1 mb block he has to pay $10 million per year.  (and $100M if we rise fee to $0.6)

No, the damage to the user base in that scenario will kill user growth which is the one thing that will cause value to square over time.
696  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 08, 2015, 06:05:07 PM
...  the above graph i just put up shows tremendous stress on Bitcoin usage by new and existing users.  what's ironic is that the continuous stream of full blocks is a reflection of miners begging for bigger blocks so that they can chew through that mempool in an instant.  ...

It is spam attack and with 8MB block it will be worse.

Quote from: Rusty Russell
... if blocks were 8MB: an 8MB transaction with 22,500 inputs and 3.95MB of outputs takes over 11 minutes to hash ....
worse for the attacker who would be paying 8 x in fees. miners can upgrade there CPU's if they are having problems collecting the fees.

That's why there should be no limit at which a spammer can aim for. He'd be shooting in the dark in a futile attempt to jack the mempool all the while losing money to miners who will clear his spam immediately until he capitulates from huge losses never to return.
697  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 08, 2015, 06:01:27 PM
Gavin is right about one thing however.  The sky will not fall because of full blocks.

Now please return to the normal Chicken Little routine.  It would be so quite in here without your panicked squawking.   Wink

you have no idea what a true fee mkt is.  it's not what we're getting now.  the above graph i just put up shows tremendous stress on Bitcoin usage by new and existing users.  what's ironic is that the continuous stream of full blocks is a reflection of miners begging for bigger blocks so that they can chew through that mempool in an instant.  that "clearing" of the mempool would enforce losses on the spammer.  right now, they can just recycle their spam as it gets deleted every 24 h while still causing damage to the user experience. 

get your head out of your ass.

Oh, touchy touchy!  You really don't like it when I use facts, logic, and humor to highlight the contradictions and unsupported assertions in your worldview.   Smiley

How precisely does increasing the minimum fee from ~2 to ~5 cents "damage to the user experience?"

Can you explain that as easily as I can explain how undercharging for use of an incredibly valuable service, which consumes ~1.5 days worth of an avg US home's electricity, damages the long term signalling/incentive structures of the system?

Through lost economic activity from repeated stuck TX's. Users will just quit.

There are people from Greece on reddit who say they won't participate in Bitcoin until the spam issue is fixed.
698  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 08, 2015, 05:58:39 PM
look at this.  80K unconf tx's and 6.76TPS and yet gmax et al says there's no problem.  all that wasted computational work done by full nodes for blocks that will never clear those unconf tx's.  i told you long ago these guys will never even be able to recognize a problem even when it's staring them in the face and even after it's beat them over the head:

So the fix is to happily write these 80k spam transactions into the permanent ledger that we (full nodes) have to keep a copy of forever?

Yes, initially.

After some volatility and after the spammers figure out they can't jack the mempool anymore the attacks should stop.

someone did a calculation:

For example, with 100mb blocks, forcing average transaction fees up to only $0.06 over the course of a year would genuinely cost an attacker over $1billion.

Did he calculate how much will cost memory to keep this spam ?

Your missing the point that the spammer wouldn't even try it at that cost.
699  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 08, 2015, 05:52:11 PM
look at this.  80K unconf tx's and 6.76TPS and yet gmax et al says there's no problem.  all that wasted computational work done by full nodes for blocks that will never clear those unconf tx's.  i told you long ago these guys will never even be able to recognize a problem even when it's staring them in the face and even after it's beat them over the head:

So the fix is to happily write these 80k spam transactions into the permanent ledger that we (full nodes) have to keep a copy of forever?

Yes, initially.

After some volatility and after the spammers figure out they can't jack the mempool anymore the attacks should stop.

someone did a calculation:

For example, with 100mb blocks, forcing average transaction fees up to only $0.06 over the course of a year would genuinely cost an attacker over $1billion.
700  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 08, 2015, 05:48:37 PM
look at this.  80K unconf tx's and 6.76TPS and yet gmax et al says there's no problem.  all that wasted computational work done by full nodes for blocks that will never clear those unconf tx's.  i told you long ago these guys will never even be able to recognize a problem even when it's staring them in the face and even after it's beat them over the head:

So the fix is to happily write these 80k spam transactions into the permanent ledger that we (full nodes) have to keep a copy of forever?

Yes, initially.

After some volatility and after the spammers figure out they can't jack the mempool anymore the attacks should stop.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 [35] 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 ... 970 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!