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

[jonald_fyookball]

someone code it up and do a pull request.

[gmaxwell]

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...

Bitcoin Core implemented something quite similar but better-- the dust limit, though it was later reduced in effectiveness by turning the limit ten times lower.  Of course, any kind of fee based discouragement for spamming isn't going to work if the fees are too low.

I say better because it actually addresses the root problem that it both were intended to address, the creation of utxo which cost the reciever more than they are worth to spend-- while the litecoin scheme leaves that attack open but makes it somewhat more costly.

Beyond seemingly forgetting the protections from Bitcoin copied into his own codebase (and disabled), Coblee seems to have forgotten history-- Litecoin's fee antispam was originally wacked; I pointed it out and posted a patch to fix it, and encouraged miners to apply it after none of the litecoin tech people seemed to care.  It was ignored until some jackass DOS attacked their network, then they blamed me for it, and applied the fix I suggested (though with lower fees).

The current attacks don't really have that much to do with low value outputs, the attacker doesn't seem to be trying to bloat the UTXO set-- actually last night the pattern changed after miner anti-attack-filter became effective at deprioritizing them, and they've been using larger amounts now.

[interbtc]

scaling blocks would be the perfect solution. but that's an infinite discussion.

[smoothie]

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..

This is where the "Bitcoin Purists" need to admit they were wrong that "there can only be one crypto" and give credit where credit is due. Charlie (coblee) was right from 3 years ago when this spam attack happened. I remember the spam attack when it happened and the fee structure to discourage attacks has worked very nicely to date.

[notbatman]

I traced the attacks to my alt-coin mining operation last year to Panama and Switzerland, they went to a lot of trouble to screw me out of $5 worth of doge.

Any idea where these attacks are originating from?

[gmaxwell]

scaling blocks would be the perfect solution. but that's an infinite discussion.

One cannot address a crapflood attack by permantly accepting more crap for all time.

This is where the "Bitcoin Purists" need to admit they were wrong that "there can only be one crypto" and give credit where credit is due. Charlie (coblee) was right from 3 years ago when this spam attack happened. I remember the spam attack when it happened and the fee structure to discourage attacks has worked very nicely to date.

Are you talking about when he stopped ignoring my advice that his slavish copying of Bitcoin's code broke the existing anti-attack mechenisms and rendered them completely and totally ineffectial?-- and applied a patch I provided?  I'm surprised you'd forget that-- because

Go actually look at the litecoin repository. You'll see almost nothing but miles of them copying code from Bitcoin Core.

As mentioned above... We have almost the same protection in Bitcoin being mentioned here; but the attacker is just paying enough to avoid it (partially because it was subsiquently turned too low in anticipation of higher Bitcoin prices); and the latest volly of attack transactions  don't even involve very small payments.

I realize that you're a long time litecoin advocate; but seriously-- pick a argument that actually makes sense.  Otherwise it's just embarassing.

I traced the attacks to my alt-coin mining operation last year to Panama and Switzerland, they went to a lot of trouble to screw me out of $5 worth of doge.

Any idea where these attacks are originating from?

A big chunk of them originate from this transaction: 3bad15167c60de483cd32cb990d1e46f0a0d8ab380e3fc1cace01afc9c1bb5af  if you can figure out whos exchange withdraw this-- since this key immediately began making the attack txn itself is you may have some very concrete evidence about whos attacking here.

[randy8777]

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned somewhere already, but: approximately how much does an attack like this cost?

i think it only cost them time if they are constantly spamming their own addresses. otherwise it would be too costly if they plan to make a long lasting attack.

[Klestin]

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.

What are you talking about?  I've noticed exactly zero impact of the spammers to any of my transactions this week.  Perhaps you're not including a proper transaction fee?

[jonald_fyookball]

seems to have forgotten history-- Litecoin's fee antispam was originally wacked;

it was in cointelegraph though, so it must be right

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned somewhere already, but: approximately how much does an attack like this cost?

i think it only cost them time if they are constantly spamming their own addresses. otherwise it would be too costly if they plan to make a long lasting attack.

How much do you think fees would have to increase to make this kind of attack prohibitively expensive for even the most deep-pocketed evil-doers?

[lucaspm98]

someone code it up and do a pull request.

Go ahead, sir.

That's a little easier said then done!

[David Rabahy]

If the deepest pocket (bottomless?), the US Feds, wanted to spam Bitcoin into oblivion how much would it take?  Won't US dollar inflation eventually kick in?  Won't the miners force the spammer to pay more for fresh/recycled Bitcoins to keep the spam going?

[PolarPoint]

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...

This is not a fix. Attacker can spam with larger amounts like sending 0.01btc to hundreds of addresses, move them around and group them only to start the cycle again. Charging more fee to small amounts will not stop this kind of spam. If we want to go down the increase-fee route, we have to increase fee for all transactions.

[jonald_fyookball]

someone code it up and do a pull request.

Go ahead, sir.

That's a little easier said then done!

well apparently according to gmaxwell, if I understood him correctly, all is well and good.  no need to change anything regarding spam.

[mezmerizer9]

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.

Great! The spam transactions without suffice fees included will later or never get confirmed. So as the normal transactions included minimum fees will get confirmed soon! So what do u still worry about?

[Outlander]

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...

This is not a fix. Attacker can spam with larger amounts like sending 0.01btc to hundreds of addresses, move them around and group them only to start the cycle again. Charging more fee to small amounts will not stop this kind of spam. If we want to go down the increase-fee route, we have to increase fee for all transactions.

Please do a little reading on the provided link before posting this none sense questions. The suggestion is that fees is charged for every single output, no matter how high the input amount is! If you split into 10 small outputs, you will be charged 10 times of standard fees.

[lihuajkl]

If the deepest pocket (bottomless?), the US Feds, wanted to do spam Bitcoin into oblivion how much would it take?

Why will the US do this kind of insane things? US could just take the advantage of bitcoin, regulate and tax it.They benefit from it and wouldn't lose anything.

Won't US dollar inflation eventually kick in? 

Yes, it will increase year by year.

Won't the miners force the spammer to pay more for fresh/recycled Bitcoins to keep the spam going?

No, actually! But the spammer's transactions will be avoided or delayed by miners.

[PenguinFire]

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

Larger blocks does not prevent spammers.....

I don't understand this.  So, if the transaction fees go up it prevents spamming?  This has been a largely discussed topic in the past weeks yet everyone is talking above my head. 

[Amph]

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

Larger blocks does not prevent spammers.....

I don't understand this.  So, if the transaction fees go up it prevents spamming?  This has been a largely discussed topic in the past weeks yet everyone is talking above my head.  

not it's a bad thing, low fee is one of the advantages of bitcoin, they should stay low, and always customizable, if i want to pay zero fees and wait days for my confirmation, i want to do it, i want complete freedom with bitcoin

[ragi]

not it's a bad thing, low fee is one of the advantages of bitcoin, they should stay low, and always customizable, if i want to pay zero fees and wait days for my confirmation, i want do it, i want complete freedom with bitcoin

Yes! So much yes. Making high fee mandatory is just plain stupid. I should be in control always.