28 000 unconfirmed TXs

[Hyena]

This is getting really annoying. I have waited for several hours for the confirmation. If there was a way to increase the TX fee to get it confirmed faster I would already be doing it because it is a really urgent TX. I cannot go to sleep because of this. Fuck you bitcoin network, you are pissing me off right now. How long will those "stress tests" continue? I would say everyone already gets the point so why continue?

[1715666652]

1715666652

[funtotry]

Why do these faggots keep doing this.
I am buying in on the litecoin hype train, but I fucking can't because it is taking hours for my TX to confirm because of these autists doing this "stress test"
Just STOP

[meono]

This is getting really annoying. I have waited for several hours for the confirmation. If there was a way to increase the TX fee to get it confirmed faster I would already be doing it because it is a really urgent TX. I cannot go to sleep because of this. Fuck you bitcoin network, you are pissing me off right now. How long will those "stress tests" continue? I would say everyone already gets the point so why continue?

In case you didnt know, there is a memo on chinese sites that the attack is carried out by the group that pumped LTC, (with a pyramid scheme).

[fairglu]

because of these autists doing this "stress test"

Not autists doing a stress tests, but smart people with a plan.

There is about 30-40 BTC now being spent on this dust spam attack, the first spams days ago were probably the stress test for what is happening now. They're now sending dust to actual wallets (like wikileak), which will make it a PITA for these wallets (and will further bloat the blockchain when they will  defragment)

As annoying as it is, it's something that the network has to be strengthened against, if BTC wants to be a global currency, it's a problem it has to tackle.

FWIW a dust attack happened years ago againts LTC, and since that attack there is a huge amount of unspendable 1 satoshi dust bloating the LTC blockchain. It will be interesting to see how BTC comes out.

[Hyena]

because of these autists doing this "stress test"

Not autists doing a stress tests, but smart people with a plan.

There is about 30-40 BTC now being spent on this dust spam attack, the first spams days ago were probably the stress test for what is happening now. They're now sending dust to actual wallets (like wikileak), which will make it a PITA for these wallets (and will further bloat the blockchain when they will  defragment)

As annoying as it is, it's something that the network has to be strengthened against, if BTC wants to be a global currency, it's a problem it has to tackle.

FWIW a dust attack happened years ago againts LTC, and since that attack there is a huge amount of unspendable 1 satoshi dust bloating the LTC blockchain. It will be interesting to see how BTC comes out.

There should be a mechanism to set a minimum number of satoshis that your address is willing to receive and that should be saved in the bitcoin's block chain, signed by the private key to your address. Then all TXs that include an output to your defined address with a smaller amount than you have specified would be rejected by the bitcoin network immediately.

edit:
setting a minimal accepted amount must require a TX fee of course because it consumes space in the block chain.

[fairglu]

setting a minimal accepted amount must require a TX fee of course because it consumes space in the block chain.

That would not work with change addresses... the wallet creates change address automatically, they're part of your wallet and bitcoin's pseudonymity and security features.

Paying a fee for all your change address would be impractical, and provide a money trail to boot.

[Hyena]

setting a minimal accepted amount must require a TX fee of course because it consumes space in the block chain.

That would not work with change addresses... the wallet creates change address automatically, they're part of your wallet and bitcoin's pseudonymity and security features.

Paying a fee for all your change address would be impractical, and provide a money trail to boot.

So what? I never said this should be effective for absolutely all addresses. By default, there should be no minimum amount. However, if you had a public donation receiving address, then it makes sense to establish a minimum amount that you would accept.

[fairglu]

However, if you had a public donation receiving address, then it makes sense to establish a minimum amount that you would accept.

Spammer could then just spam the addresses you spent your donation on, or any "weak link".

I do not think that any manual measures can be effective against spam, just like manually filtering your mail, manually white-listing and manually black-listing never worked very well, and never will.

Spam being automated, it has to be fought by automated means.

[Hyena]

However, if you had a public donation receiving address, then it makes sense to establish a minimum amount that you would accept.

Spammer could then just spam the addresses you spent your donation on, or any "weak link".

No, false. Spammer could not spam the change addresses if you have not spent anything yet. My solution still has a practical value in many cases. The donation receiver could spend the donations in batches or perhaps not use a change address at all or set the same address for the change address.

I do not think that any manual measures can be effective against spam, just like manually filtering your mail, manually white-listing and manually black-listing never worked very well, and never will.

Spam being automated, it has to be fought by automated means.

This is the automated means.

[fairglu]

No, false. Spammer could not spam the change addresses if you have not spent anything yet. My solution still has a practical value in many cases. The donation receiver could spend the donations in batches or perhaps not use a change address at all or set the same address for the change address.

This still puts the onus of the trouble on the receiver, and any mistakes makes him an easy target.

A good anti-spam solution should be easy on the normal users, "safe by default", and hard for the spammer, "expensive by default", not vice-versa.

[Hyena]

No, false. Spammer could not spam the change addresses if you have not spent anything yet. My solution still has a practical value in many cases. The donation receiver could spend the donations in batches or perhaps not use a change address at all or set the same address for the change address.

This still puts the onus of the trouble on the receiver, and any mistakes makes him an easy target.

A good anti-spam solution should be easy on the normal users, "safe by default", and hard for the spammer, "expensive by default", not vice-versa.

GTFO. You are too lazy to understand the implications of my proposal and you fail to provide any solutions yourself. You just whine.

This still puts the onus of the trouble on the receiver, and any mistakes makes him an easy target.

What does this even mean? In case you are not a programmer I am not going to even bother to discuss this with you any further. In case you are a programmer, you should know, that what you see as a problem, can be solved programmatically by the wallet software. Either way, since you fail to understand the technical details of such a feature, you should just stick to the abstract.

Abstract
There should be functionality for the wallet owner to define the minimum amount of bitcoins they are willing to receive. Such a command must be saved in the bitcoin block chain for a small fee. As a result, bitcoin wallets become resistant to dust spam which would otherwise slow down their device dramatically or consume all the RAM.