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

[spazzdla]

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

Larger blocks does not prevent spammers.....

[jonald_fyookball]

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

[Klestin]

Miners include whatever transactions they wish to include, based on whatever minimum transaction fee rules they wish to set, including setting rules based on number of outputs.

[Shattered]

On a side note, it would be nice if it cost fractional bitcoins to send emails.
Spamming as we know it would evaporate faster than a snowcone in the desert

[Alley]

Larger blocks will mean the spammers tx will go through and not just recycled after 24hours.  Meaning it will become too expensive to spam.  Any statement from core devs?

[spazzdla]

Larger blocks will mean the spammers tx will go through and not just recycled after 24hours.  Meaning it will become too expensive to spam.  Any statement from core devs?

Humm.. any more talk about this?  This is interesting but again just more spam and we have the same issue?

[yeponlyone]

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

It would be interesting to hear the reason why bitcoin developers turned down Lee's pull request to include litecoin's solution to the spam problem three years ago...

[OROBTC]

...

I will not be persuaded that making blocks larger and other proposed solutions that I do not understand will make these spam attacks stop.  And, yes, these are attacks.  They inconvenience all (most) of us, make confirmations longer, and stress the system.

My initial idea on another thread was to raise some minimums (either raise the minimum transaction size or the miner's fee) a bit to eliminate spam.

It really does not matter if the minimum transaction amount were to be BTC0.001 (20 US cents) or another arbitrary amount (say BTC0.0003) = approx. 7 cents).

It really does not matter if the minimum miner's fee BTC0.0002 (about 5 cents) or even BTC0.0001 (a common miner's fee, often the default).

It was another member here who painted the current scenario correctly IMO:

Do we want a secure Bitcoin Ecosystem that transmits and confirms quickly (but w/ no micropayments or approx. zero fees)?

OR

Do we want the ability to send free (or nearly so) micropayments and have a clogged system?


Pick one...  As far as I can see, we cannot have BOTH.


I know which one I want: a secure & fast way to transmit money.

[bitllionaire]

I don't think spammers are a problem,if there are larger blocks,what does spammers matter?

[Hollingsworth]

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

Coblee has the answer, an elegant and simple fix...

"CT: Can you explain why Litecoin is ‘immune’ to the spam attack?

CL: The fix implemented in Litecoin is just to charge the sender a fee for each tiny output he creates. For example, in this specific attack, the sender is charged one fee for sending to 34 tiny outputs of 0.00001 BTC. With the fix, that fee would be 34 times as much. So it would cost the attacker a lot more to perform the spam attack. The concept is fairly simple: the sender should pay for each tiny output he/she creates."

[spazzdla]

I don't think spammers are a problem,if there are larger blocks,what does spammers matter?

They just fill up the bigger blocks....

[ThEmporium]

I think, there must be some measures to be taken to avoid spammers during any single transactions, by permitting BTC transactions only through the authorized and well authenticated exchange and it should be registered in Blockchain processes and marked all over the network. Any exchanges which are not registered should be deny to enter into the blocks.

[spazzdla]

I think, there must be some measures to be taken to avoid spammers during any single transactions, by permitting BTC transactions only through the authorized and well authenticated exchange and it should be registered in Blockchain processes and marked all over the network. Any exchanges which are not registered should be deny to enter into the blocks.

This is a bad idea, centralization = bad.

Keep them coming though!!!

[meono]

The problem will fix itself once we increase the blocksize. We should have done this as the technology grows but we're limited by politic policy (great wall of China)

What you noobs dont understand is the attack gets extremely expensive with 8mb or 20mb blocksize.


The "fix" by Lee is not good. It might work for litecoin as its only used for dust transaction anyway. But Bitcoin aims for more than that, such fee structure would limit btc expansion in other application of blockchain.

[sturle]

The problem will fix itself once we increase the blocksize. We should have done this as the technology grows but we're limited by politic policy (great wall of China)

What you noobs dont understand is the attack gets extremely expensive with 8mb or 20mb blocksize.

Really?  In that case you have discovered something new and exciting, and are up for a Nobel Price in economy.  According to the most fundamental economic theory, the attack will cost exactly the same regardless of blocksize.  The cost to users who want privacy and security will increase of course, since the cost of running a full node will increase.  When the supply of block space increases, the price of transactions will go down proportionally, allowing for cheaper spam.  The price to fill a block will stay the same.  Can you please explain why the laws of supply and demand don't apply here?

To solve the spam problem we must target the spam, not allow more of it.  Small blocks will at least stop the spam from bloating full nodes too much until the spam problem has been solved.

[meono]

The problem will fix itself once we increase the blocksize. We should have done this as the technology grows but we're limited by politic policy (great wall of China)

What you noobs dont understand is the attack gets extremely expensive with 8mb or 20mb blocksize.

Really?  In that case you have discovered something new and exciting, and are up for a Nobel Price in economy.  According to the most fundamental economic theory, the attack will cost exactly the same regardless of blocksize.  The cost to users who want privacy and security will increase of course, since the cost of running a full node will increase.  When the supply of block space increases, the price of transactions will go down proportionally, allowing for cheaper spam.  The price to fill a block will stay the same.  Can you please explain why the laws of supply and demand don't apply here?

To solve the spam problem we must target the spam, not allow more of it.  Small blocks will at least stop the spam from bloating full nodes too much until the spam problem has been solved.

What you got it wrong is dumbass, supply and demand does not apply to technical aspect of the blockchain.

As i already said, the cost to carry out this attack for a good period of time to matter will be way too much. The TX size will be way to big and while their age is very low. Start learning how priority works in blockchain tx b4 talking like you actually know economy.

[sturle]

What you got it wrong is dumbass, supply and demand does not apply to technical aspect of the blockchain.

Huh?  Since when?  Please publish this, your Nobel Price is guaranteed!  Block space is the limited resource the txfee pays for.

As i already said, the cost to carry out this attack for a good period of time to matter will be way too much. The TX size will be way to big and while their age is very low. Start learning how priority works in blockchain tx b4 talking like you actually know economy.

Somehow I think I know more about how priority works than you do.

Priority for a transaction is the sum of (input size in satoshis * input age) for all inputs, divided by the number of inputs.  A portion of each block, currently 50KB by default – this can be changed with the -blockprioritysize option – is reserved for high priority transactions where the fee is not considered.  For the rest of the block transactions are selected by which pay the highest fee per KB.

Some pools run with a higher blockprioritysize to promote real transactions over spam.  E.g. BitMinter use 500KB.  500KB is more than enough to allow for all non-spam transactions today.

[pereira4]

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

It would be interesting to hear the reason why bitcoin developers turned down Lee's pull request to include litecoin's solution to the spam problem three years ago...

He probably didn't had enough consensus. I don't know what the f** are they talking about to implement it along with a blocksize increase. What sort of catastrophe is needed for us to wake up?

[Sindren]

This discussion is fine but the truth is that bitcoin is not usable at this time. Talking without action is for nothing..

Few days more and bitcoin will go to shit.

[ajareselde]

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

Coblee has the answer, an elegant and simple fix...

"CT: Can you explain why Litecoin is ‘immune’ to the spam attack?

CL: The fix implemented in Litecoin is just to charge the sender a fee for each tiny output he creates. For example, in this specific attack, the sender is charged one fee for sending to 34 tiny outputs of 0.00001 BTC. With the fix, that fee would be 34 times as much. So it would cost the attacker a lot more to perform the spam attack. The concept is fairly simple: the sender should pay for each tiny output he/she creates."

I hate litecoin to be honest, but in this case i believe Coblee is correct. 23 000 of unconfirmed transactions, and 42382.330078125 (KB) ..
blockchain.info freezes just by me thinking of opening it and so on..

And meanwhile in bitcoin development:


Real nice move bitcoin, real nice..