We ARE under attack.. we NEED to act...

[spazzdla]

This thread is getting somewhere.

I really like this idea of mimicing the LTC idea.

[acquafredda]

This could be a major problem: if we think of the  lower/mid average user this fee/block limit issues could be disastrous.
There should be much more awareness about how the whole BTC ecosystem works but there are only these kind of BTCers I see so far:
the enthusiasts, who just love it;
the get rich soon ones who just care about the price;
the merchants;
the first time users who come here and don't take a step forward to understand what this is all about.

Personally I think the LTC solution might be a good one and I agree that something needs to be done.

Everything is so rapid here that also some changes/adjustments/improvements need to be taken as quickly as possible.

This will show maturity and strength to the outside. And of course we all know the potential that our BTC have.

my 2 satoshis

 

[fairglu]

What sort of transaction censoring are you contemplating now?

Transactions with many small outputs could be censored outright, what constitutes a "small output" could be revised later one, or computed automatically based on transactions accepted since N blocks.
While BTC can support infinite subdivision and that may come useful in the future, that infinite subdivision serves no purpose right now, or in the next few years.

Transactions where the same output address appears multiple times could be banned as well (as they only bloat the blockchain)

Changing the fee structure rather than just raising the fee would be also a possibility, so that you pay more for larger blocks with small amounts. LTC has something like that, and there were many proposals in that direction for BTC as well.
Like the above, the notion of "small amount" could be adjusted down the road.

Finally in the spam, there are some non-spendable script outputs, these have other uses, but are using the blockchain as storage, and thus could be asked a proportionally higher fee based on byte length.

[BillyBobZorton]

What sort of transaction censoring are you contemplating now?

Transactions with many small outputs could be censored outright, what constitutes a "small output" could be revised later one, or computed automatically based on transactions accepted since N blocks.
While BTC can support infinite subdivision and that may come useful in the future, that infinite subdivision serves no purpose right now, or in the next few years.

Transactions where the same output address appears multiple times could be banned as well (as they only bloat the blockchain)

Changing the fee structure rather than just raising the fee would be also a possibility, so that you pay more for larger blocks with small amounts. LTC has something like that, and there were many proposals in that direction for BTC as well.
Like the above, the notion of "small amount" could be adjusted down the road.

Finally in the spam, there are some non-spendable script outputs, these have other uses, but are using the blockchain as storage, and thus could be asked a proportionally higher fee based on byte length.

I agree with LN doing all those picotransactions off chain, but we need a blocksize increase anyway, I just don't know what the f*** are we waiting for to get that done. 8mb increase ever 2 years seems like the best way, we can't have 1mb forever.
My only problem with this is running a full node may become a chore due mega space..

[fairglu]

8mb increase ever 2 years seems like the best way, we can't have 1mb forever.
My only problem with this is running a full node may become a chore due mega space..

Much agreed.

Running a full node is already quite heavy (2 GB RAM & 60 GB storage minimum if you want to be a useful node).

What we need is both a block size increase AND pruning (cf. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1078123.msg11573709#msg11573709), this way operating a useful node would become much lighter, and the block size increase would not pose any significant bloat problems.

With pruning, a node with full history would still be quite heavy, but full history would not be required to run a useful node that can verify and relay tx.

(pruning wallet != light wallet, it just a wallet that "forgets" about spent utxo and fully spent tx that are older than a few thousand blocks, under the rationale that if we fork more than a few thousand blocks, bitcoin is dead anyway)

[spazzdla]

What sort of transaction censoring are you contemplating now?

Transactions with many small outputs could be censored outright, what constitutes a "small output" could be revised later one, or computed automatically based on transactions accepted since N blocks.
While BTC can support infinite subdivision and that may come useful in the future, that infinite subdivision serves no purpose right now, or in the next few years.

Transactions where the same output address appears multiple times could be banned as well (as they only bloat the blockchain)

Changing the fee structure rather than just raising the fee would be also a possibility, so that you pay more for larger blocks with small amounts. LTC has something like that, and there were many proposals in that direction for BTC as well.
Like the above, the notion of "small amount" could be adjusted down the road.

Finally in the spam, there are some non-spendable script outputs, these have other uses, but are using the blockchain as storage, and thus could be asked a proportionally higher fee based on byte length.

I agree with LN doing all those picotransactions off chain, but we need a blocksize increase anyway, I just don't know what the f*** are we waiting for to get that done. 8mb increase ever 2 years seems like the best way, we can't have 1mb forever.
My only problem with this is running a full node may become a chore due mega space..

I don't think the internet backbone can keep up with that kind of increase.. :S.

[lorylore]

How can i contribute to stop this "stress test", we are tired of unconfirmed transactions

[Hazir]

This attack show us one something interesting - Bitcoin is becoming next big invention. We are in the second phase of bitcoin history.
1st phase is when they ignore you and laugh at you; 2nd phase is when they try to fight with you. Bitcoin is needle in the eye of big financial world.
I would assume that attack is not stress test but the part of anti bitcoin campaign to show people that bitcoin can't be trusted.

[favdesu]

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114791/litecoin-shows-there-is-a-simple-fix-for-spam-attacks-on-bitcoin

not really. litecoin fees are almost nothing, so you can still attack it even with dust fees. it's more expensive but still possible

[lorylore]

This attack show us one something interesting - Bitcoin is becoming next big invention. We are in the second phase of bitcoin history.
1st phase is when they ignore you and laugh at you; 2nd phase is when they try to fight with you. Bitcoin is needle in the eye of big financial world.
I would assume that attack is not stress test but the part of anti bitcoin campaign to show people that bitcoin can't be trusted.

Yes this would make new people that want to join/use bitcoin to make them feeling confused and think that bitcoin isnt secure.

[spazzdla]

How can i contribute to stop this "stress test", we are tired of unconfirmed transactions

We need a dev to do something...........

WHERE THE F are they....

I suppose someone could implyment it, it could be reviewed and we could all just jump to the new QT..

[comet1440]

 It's game over, guys. The powers the be want Bitcoin gone. I've found out that this isn't being done by some one off random hacker dude somewhere messing around trying to cause some chaos. This is a coordinated effort by some of the largest and most powerful financial entities in the world to destabilize the network and ruin bitcoin for good. The bitcoin "community" has no options available for stopping this from happening. This is an ant vs a lion type battle. They have billions of dollars - transaction fees are inconsequential. They have millions of servers and  personnel. Cash out your bitcoins into fiat now before it's too late as this is just a warmup for a longer more broad attack that shall fell bitcoin. It was obvious this day would come do you really think the fiat complex would actually let bitcoin become a threat to their dominance? a decentralized currency means no one has ultimate control. Humans won't accept not being able to control the masses.

[spazzdla]

It's game over, guys. The powers the be want Bitcoin gone. I've found out that this isn't being done by some one off random hacker dude somewhere messing around trying to cause some chaos. This is a coordinated effort by some of the largest and most powerful financial entities in the world to destabilize the network and ruin bitcoin for good. The bitcoin "community" has no options available for stopping this from happening. This is an ant vs a lion type battle. They have billions of dollars - transaction fees are inconsequential. They have millions of servers and  personnel. Cash out your bitcoins into fiat now before it's too late as this is just a warmup for a longer more broad attack that shall fell bitcoin. It was obvious this day would come do you really think the fiat complex would actually let bitcoin become a threat to their dominance? a decentralized currency means no one has ultimate control. Humans won't accept not being able to control the masses.

It's time to bleed the pigs dry, we can eaisly make it cost them a 10's of million of dollars every 10min to do this.. funneling that wealth to the miners.

This COULD be the event that hangs the old money who have ran this world for to long.

[Meuh6879]

How can i contribute to stop this "stress test", we are tired of unconfirmed transactions

it's too big than you, bro ... 

[NewLiberty]

It's game over, guys. The powers the be want Bitcoin gone. I've found out that this isn't being done by some one off random hacker dude somewhere messing around trying to cause some chaos. This is a coordinated effort by some of the largest and most powerful financial entities in the world to destabilize the network and ruin bitcoin for good. The bitcoin "community" has no options available for stopping this from happening. This is an ant vs a lion type battle. They have billions of dollars - transaction fees are inconsequential. They have millions of servers and  personnel. Cash out your bitcoins into fiat now before it's too late as this is just a warmup for a longer more broad attack that shall fell bitcoin. It was obvious this day would come do you really think the fiat complex would actually let bitcoin become a threat to their dominance? a decentralized currency means no one has ultimate control. Humans won't accept not being able to control the masses.

It's time to bleed the pigs dry, we can eaisly make it cost them a 10's of million of dollars every 10min to do this.. funneling that wealth to the miners.

This COULD be the event that hangs the old money who have ran this world for to long.

If only this were true.
It would mark the beginning of the end for them.  How wonderful that TPTB would be dumping cash into miner's pockets in a misguided attempt to "destabilize the network".  

Bitcoin Transaction Fee Market Spam "test"
Result:  
1) bitcoin price up,
2) Bitcoin hash rate up,
3) increased miner profitability

Such destabilize.

[sturle]

How can i contribute to stop this "stress test", we are tired of unconfirmed transactions

We need a dev to do something...........
WHERE THE F are they....
I suppose someone could implyment it, it could be reviewed and we could all just jump to the new QT..

As far as I can see the devs must have been busy supporting pools at implementing better spam filters, instead if engaging in pointless discussion here.  As you can see most normal transactions get confirmed faster now, while the spam is queueing up.  Many miners have switched pools as well, to pools which filter the spam better.  Voting with their hashrate.

What is the new QT?

[Klestin]

It's game over, guys. The powers the be want Bitcoin gone. I've found out that this isn't being done by some one off random hacker dude somewhere messing around trying to cause some chaos. This is a coordinated effort by some of the largest and most powerful financial entities in the world to destabilize the network and ruin bitcoin for good. The bitcoin "community" has no options available for stopping this from happening.

Except, you know... using a moderate transaction fee.

[Beliathon]

The fees must go up or some measure to kill spamers.

Larger blocks does not prevent spammers.....

I don't feel under attack, all I see is my savings growing in value day by day.

[favdesu]

The fees must go up or some measure to kill spamers.

Larger blocks does not prevent spammers.....

I don't feel under attack, all I see is my savings growing in value day by day.

and I think that's the point. the price did not care whether bitcoin was under attack or not, which is a great thing to see

[LiteCoinGuy]

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114791/litecoin-shows-there-is-a-simple-fix-for-spam-attacks-on-bitcoin

iam pretty confident that bitcoin will find a way too to handle this problem. but it is good to look at Litecoin in these days. now you see, how the second biggest blockchain handles this problem.