If you don't pay the fees, you will be BLOCK.

[amaclin]

And what happens if we got a flood of 1 satoshi transactions without fee?

nothing happens. most of clients ignore these dust transactions.

[AgentofCoin]

What would be a legitimate reason to push non-confirmed transactions over and over?

Do we need a reason to broadcast valid non-confirmed transaction to a peer?

Yes, so all peers will propagate that valid unconfirmed tx.
But why push a valid unconfirmed tx that shall not be accepted into any valid block ever?

Isn't re-boradcasting it over and over and keeping it in the mempool just adding to the
problem as to

I do not know.

Isn't that a memory usage attack vector?

It is understandable if your tx is good and after a few days you repush it when a bottle
neck is over, but nodes pushing for weeks or months seems like misbehavior.

No, it is not understandable.
You have a right to locate all such nodes and punish their owners.
You also have a right to keep forever all tx hashes for the transactions you have deleted and ban
the peers which re-send these transactions.  

Here is the question then:
Can Bitcoin attacks and attack vectors be a malicious act or a misbehavior in your eyes?
Or since it is doable or executable, it is always a justly act and there can be no injurious acts.

[amaclin]

But why push a valid unconfirmed tx that shall not be accepted into any valid block ever?

It shall.
For example the transaction
https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin/tx/2fb06fec2d549f1d05158f4a7a0812b50e7bb7cadf1697584e194ba01397886d
was discovered on the network 8 Oct 2015 and confirmed 25 oct 2016
It was pushed by somebody over and over until confirmation succeded.
And there are a lot of such transactions

Isn't that a memory usage attack vector?

May be. But nodes can limit the size of mempool today

Here is the question then:
Can Bitcoin attacks and attack vectors be a malicious act or a misbehavior in your eyes?

If there is no code in sources which treat this as misbehavior - this is not misbehavior, but
a consensus of network usage. Sorry, my English is poor, I am not sure that I got a question
correctly and my answer is clear.

[Dabs]

https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin/tx/2fb06fec2d549f1d05158f4a7a0812b50e7bb7cadf1697584e194ba01397886d
was discovered on the network 8 Oct 2015 and confirmed 25 oct 2016

So someone doesn't want to pay a 0.0005 BTC (or 0.34 USD) fee and is willing to wait a year ... ... yeah, the total amount was rather small so, I can understand.

[AgentofCoin]

But why push a valid unconfirmed tx that shall not be accepted into any valid block ever?

It shall.
For example the transaction
https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin/tx/2fb06fec2d549f1d05158f4a7a0812b50e7bb7cadf1697584e194ba01397886d
was discovered on the network 8 Oct 2015 and confirmed 25 oct 2016
It was pushed by somebody over and over until confirmation succeded.
And there are a lot of such transactions

Ok. I'm pretty surprised that a miner would mine that type of tx today.

In the future, those dust amounts would in theory be worth more, so they will become
common again as time goes on, but currently that is a lot of data added to the blockchain
for just $0.58 USD. The mining cost to add that tx to the chain must have been at least $1.28 USD.

But I guess you are correct, there are some re-broadcasts that are "neutral".

[pooya87]

i think it is worth mentioning that we are back to normal levels again:


i am so curious about this, because to be honest i wasn't expecting 40K+ unconfirmed transactions that took nearly 2 days to build up go down to normal level of <5K in only a day!

[amaclin]

Ok. I'm pretty surprised that a miner would mine that type of tx today.

Why not?
Miners are interested in fees
If there are no high-fee txs - they do confirm txs with low fee even these txs are 1 year old and created by spamer
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1175321.0

[mobnepal]

Actually i think majority of low fee to no fee transaction are being sent by newbies to bitcoin as well as for spam attacks to bitcoin network. And also it will be quite confusing for new bitcoin users to calculate their transaction size before sending bitcoin using web wallets and if that wallet doesn't provide automatic recommended fee detection system, users will try to use whatever they like (usually low to minimize fee cost) making their transaction stucked which make them fear even more dealing with bitcoin in future.

I think Web wallet should focus on implementing fee recommendation system (i have seen this in few), users need to be more aware of importance of transactions fees to have less unconfirmed transactions in future.

[Kakmakr]

Actually i think majority of low fee to no fee transaction are being sent by newbies to bitcoin as well as for spam attacks to bitcoin network. And also it will be quite confusing for new bitcoin users to calculate their transaction size before sending bitcoin using web wallets and if that wallet doesn't provide automatic recommended fee detection system, users will try to use whatever they like (usually low to minimize fee cost) making their transaction stucked which make them fear even more dealing with bitcoin in future.

I think Web wallet should focus on implementing fee recommendation system (i have seen this in few), users need to be more aware of importance of transactions fees to have less unconfirmed transactions in future.

In my view, users using web wallets should be focused less on fees. They opted to use these services and these services have the responsibility to their customers to manage fee recommendation on their behalf. Imagine if the banks did this to their customers? < Tell them to manage their fees on their own, and if they did not get it right, they will have unconfirmed transactions for months > I would surely not use such a service.

Once again, third party services are clearly dropping the ball, and Bitcoin gets the blame. ^fuming^

[AgentofCoin]

Ok. I'm pretty surprised that a miner would mine that type of tx today.

Why not?
Miners are interested in fees
If there are no high-fee txs - they do confirm txs with low fee even these txs are 1 year old and created by spamer
...

Looking at mempool graphs for October 25, 2016, seems to have a steady 6k to 9k txs pending
throughout the day. So it is interesting a miner would take on that cost instead of taking a higher fee.

The prior block was:           over 600kb,   1,284 txs,     0.2849 btc fee      So avg 45 satos per byte
The block in question was:  over 900kb,      794 txs,     0.1955 btc fee      So avg 20 satos per byte
The block after was:           over 900kb,   2,245 txs,     0.7235 btc fee      So avg 72 satos per byte

So when you look at the 3 block side by side, the one we are talking about took on more data for less fee,
the other two seem somewhat in proportion and makes some sense to me.

In addition, here is another crazy tx this one miner took:
https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin/tx/c1696113e3cd152dee1e9b4b42057995ba253d082b4228f9d5d3623ade179dff
This has no fee and over 33,000 bytes.
Edit: seems this tx is the miner pool paying its miners and mined their own tx.

[amaclin]

Looking at mempool graphs for October 25, 2016

link?

In addition, here is another crazy tx this one miner took:
This has no fee and over 33,000 bytes.

possible resaons:
1) cpfp
2) pool has a vip-entrance for some txs

[AgentofCoin]

Looking at mempool graphs for October 25, 2016

link?

https://www.bitcoinqueue.com/details/4d.html