i heard someone attacked bitcoin network by lot of transaction...?

[mynameisdon]

hey all come on...lets discuss someone attacked on bitcoin block by making lot of transaction with lowest transaction fee.
if block is always full like this then bitcoin transaction will not conform cause of no space on block....so what is our opinion with this happens?

[1714674573]

1714674573

[1714674573]

1714674573

[1714674573]

1714674573

[Lutpin]

hey all come on...lets discuss someone attacked on bitcoin block by making lot of transaction with lowest transaction fee.

Hardly an attack. Pay a higher fee than those unconfirmed low-fee transactions and you're fine.

[pedrog]

You know you have a shitty system when using it is called an attack. 

[mynameisdon]

hey all come on...lets discuss someone attacked on bitcoin block by making lot of transaction with lowest transaction fee.

Hardly an attack. Pay a higher fee than those unconfirmed low-fee transactions and you're fine.

so its my responsibility to pay higher fees when there are lot of transaction in pending and block is full. do you really think its our responsibility?
i think in this case we should change the cryotocurrency coin.

[SebastianJu]

hey all come on...lets discuss someone attacked on bitcoin block by making lot of transaction with lowest transaction fee.

Hardly an attack. Pay a higher fee than those unconfirmed low-fee transactions and you're fine.

so its my responsibility to pay higher fees when there are lot of transaction in pending and block is full. do you really think its our responsibility?
i think in this case we should change the cryotocurrency coin.

It would have been done if no downsides would be for doing it.

The miners simply will accept the transactions that pay them the best. So the higher the fees the more the spammer have to pay too.

But I read that the attack stopped for now.

[equator]

hey all come on...lets discuss someone attacked on bitcoin block by making lot of transaction with lowest transaction fee.

Hardly an attack. Pay a higher fee than those unconfirmed low-fee transactions and you're fine.

what is the minimum transaction fees to get the transaction clear soon, so that we can go for higher then the minimum fees

[Lutpin]

what is the minimum transaction fees to get the transaction clear soon, so that we can go for higher then the minimum fees

https://bitcoinfees.21.co/ currently is suggesting a fee of 60 satoshis/byte.

i think in this case we should change the cryotocurrency coin.

You're not forced to use bitcoin, there are just enough altcoins out for you to find the one you like.

[bhodson]

hey all come on...lets discuss someone attacked on bitcoin block by making lot of transaction with lowest transaction fee.

Hardly an attack. Pay a higher fee than those unconfirmed low-fee transactions and you're fine.

so its my responsibility to pay higher fees when there are lot of transaction in pending and block is full. do you really think its our responsibility?
i think in this case we should change the cryotocurrency coin.

You are free to do that if you want.

[Bitcoin-Obmen.com]

I see a huge problems with confirmations via blockchain.info nodes. They stuck for hours with normal fees. It's strange that there's no info on their twitter.
Other nodes relays transactions with 0.0001 btc fee smoothly.

[Intermediary]

I paid the highest fee I've ever paid to get a transaction through.  This was almost 12 hours ago.  It's sitting there pending, along with the minimum fee and recommended fee transactions I've done since two days ago.

hey all come on...lets discuss someone attacked on bitcoin block by making lot of transaction with lowest transaction fee.

Hardly an attack. Pay a higher fee than those unconfirmed low-fee transactions and you're fine.

[SebastianJu]

I paid the highest fee I've ever paid to get a transaction through.  This was almost 12 hours ago.  It's sitting there pending, along with the minimum fee and recommended fee transactions I've done since two days ago.

hey all come on...lets discuss someone attacked on bitcoin block by making lot of transaction with lowest transaction fee.

Hardly an attack. Pay a higher fee than those unconfirmed low-fee transactions and you're fine.

Did you maybe include spare coins that were left in an adress you sent before? I have read that this will be a problem because the spare coins are not confirmed because the first transaction is not confirmed. So another transaction basing on that will only get confirmations when the first transaction gets one.

Though Iam not fully sure if I understood correctly.

[Lutpin]

I paid the highest fee I've ever paid to get a transaction through.  This was almost 12 hours ago.  It's sitting there pending, along with the minimum fee and recommended fee transactions I've done since two days ago.

Did you maybe include spare coins that were left in an adress you sent before? I have read that this will be a problem because the spare coins are not confirmed because the first transaction is not confirmed. So another transaction basing on that will only get confirmations when the first transaction gets one.

We'd have to see the transaction in order to say anything about that, maybe it's an unconfirmed input, maybe the transaction size is just quite high, there are alot of options which could prevent a transaction from being included in a block despite paying a "highest fee [you've] ever paid".

[SebastianJu]

Lutpin

I paid the highest fee I've ever paid to get a transaction through.  This was almost 12 hours ago.  It's sitting there pending, along with the minimum fee and recommended fee transactions I've done since two days ago.

Did you maybe include spare coins that were left in an adress you sent before? I have read that this will be a problem because the spare coins are not confirmed because the first transaction is not confirmed. So another transaction basing on that will only get confirmations when the first transaction gets one.

We'd have to see the transaction in order to say anything about that, maybe it's an unconfirmed input, maybe the transaction size is just quite high, there are alot of options which could prevent a transaction from being included in a block despite paying a "highest fee [you've] ever paid".

Yes. In fact I once was really surprised to find out how big of a fee electrum can calculate only because you have alot of inputs in the sending address.


Intermediary


The more transactions you received in the bitcoin address you sent from the higher your fee would be. It's best to let your wallet calculate it for you.

[theymos_away]

I see a huge problems with confirmations via blockchain.info nodes. They stuck for hours with normal fees. It's strange that there's no info on their twitter.
Other nodes relays transactions with 0.0001 btc fee smoothly.

Yes, I've heard that BC.i is not relaying transactions very well. Dunno if this is/was related to the spam attack. Probably some of the recent reports of stuck transactions were due to this, though there were definitely spam transactions as well.

[shorena]

I see a huge problems with confirmations via blockchain.info nodes. They stuck for hours with normal fees. It's strange that there's no info on their twitter.
Other nodes relays transactions with 0.0001 btc fee smoothly.

Yes, I've heard that BC.i is not relaying transactions very well. Dunno if this is/was related to the spam attack. Probably some of the recent reports of stuck transactions were due to this, though there were definitely spam transactions as well.

They did something similar during the spam attack. I think its just their servers that cant handle the load.

@Intermediary: I hope you didnt pay a fee high than the 777 satoshi per byte TX I wrote you by hand.

[Hirose UK]

hey all come on...lets discuss someone attacked on bitcoin block by making lot of transaction with lowest transaction fee.

Hardly an attack. Pay a higher fee than those unconfirmed low-fee transactions and you're fine.

so its my responsibility to pay higher fees when there are lot of transaction in pending and block is full. do you really think its our responsibility?
i think in this case we should change the cryotocurrency coin.

I think it's not your responsibility, but if you want your transactions take a short time, then pay higher fee.

[Kakmakr]

even i had heard that....rumors i suppose...because it difficult to attack bitcoin network

It's not that difficult, if you have enough funds to sustain a continued spam attack. You just fill up these blocks with transactions with low fees and if someone else, who does not know about this attack, send a transactions with low fees too, it will have to wait in the queue with the backlog of others who did the same thing. For obvious reasons miners will process the blocks with the higher fees first and transactions with lower fees last. The correct thing to do, would be for you to send a transaction with higher fees, in times when spam attacks are done, to make sure your transaction gets prioritized. 

[SebastianJu]

even i had heard that....rumors i suppose...because it difficult to attack bitcoin network

It's possible because an artificially restriction in the bitcoin protocol. Initially implemented to prevent spam, though it never served that purpose, it now is held up by some bitcoiners as an important groundstone of the bitcoin protocol that has to be kept in all cases. In the meanwhile the protocol suffers suffocation and bitcoiners get annoyed because transactions don't get confirmations.

It's the current "raise 1MB blocksize limit" discussion that is dividing the whole bitcoin community.

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

even i had heard that....rumors i suppose...because it difficult to attack bitcoin network

It's possible because an artificially restriction in the bitcoin protocol. Initially implemented to prevent spam, though it never served that purpose

It did serve that purpose. Without it the current blockchain would likely be much larger.

[SebastianJu]

even i had heard that....rumors i suppose...because it difficult to attack bitcoin network

It's possible because an artificially restriction in the bitcoin protocol. Initially implemented to prevent spam, though it never served that purpose

It did serve that purpose. Without it the current blockchain would likely be much larger.

When did it serve that purpose? Spam happened all the time with spam transactions over blockchain.info to show up spammy website url's and such. But the 1MB Limit was never met. It only was met now when the blocks are nearly full, in fact they are full on certain hours nearly all the time now.

But before this discussion there was no real spam that was blocked by the 1MB limit. Or was there?