Is this one of the so-called spam attacks?

[winchancer]

Example: https://blockchain.info/address/3DFxwfbPhPcqwXDKAZs83pWGuwasYKqdyR

Since some days ago I started to see it in https://blockchain.info/es/unconfirmed-transactions

A lot of same amount tx to same address

[1715139596]

1715139596

[1715139596]

1715139596

[BTCLovingDude]

yeah i think you found one of the series of the spam attacks origin.
i would have said it is a payment if the time between the transactions were more. but they are all with a couple of seconds difference:
2017-01-22 17:49:11
2017-01-22 17:48:59
2017-01-22 17:48:45
2017-01-22 17:48:08
2017-01-22 17:47:55
...
seems like this wave of spam attacks are with a fixed USD value instead of the old 0.0001BTC transactions.

Good Job finding it.

[youdamushi]

yeah i think you found one of the series of the spam attacks origin.
i would have said it is a payment if the time between the transactions were more. but they are all with a couple of seconds difference:
2017-01-22 17:49:11
2017-01-22 17:48:59
2017-01-22 17:48:45
2017-01-22 17:48:08
2017-01-22 17:47:55
...

Good Job finding it.

Can the miners block it?
Cause otherwise finding it is cool but not effective :/
And even if they want, would they?
Is it possible that miners are doing those spams attacks themselves just to rise the price of transactions ?

[winchancer]

yeah i think you found one of the series of the spam attacks origin.
i would have said it is a payment if the time between the transactions were more. but they are all with a couple of seconds difference:
2017-01-22 17:49:11
2017-01-22 17:48:59
2017-01-22 17:48:45
2017-01-22 17:48:08
2017-01-22 17:47:55
...

Good Job finding it.

Thanks. I think something should be done. The whole community is sufffering now...

[BTCLovingDude]

Can the miners block it?
Cause otherwise finding it is cool but not effective :/
And even if they want, would they?
Is it possible that miners are doing those spams attacks themselves just to rise the price of transactions ?

why would miners want to block these? they don't care and they are benefiting from this double time. first is the fact that these transactions each contain a fee 0.0001469BTC
also when this happens, mempool is filled, regular users who were adding normal fee are waiting for their transactions to confirm for hours so they start competing with each other and increase the fees.
result: miners earn even more from fees.

i think the possibility of this being miners themselves is low. it may be a group of people wanting to force the increase of block size (don't know which proposal they are supporting though!)

[Paxful_Marketing]

Yeh wow. Pretty cool that you found it. I dont understand why they would hurt the network like this though? Also a bit worrying that anyone could do this if they have enough money to do so. Are there any solutions to prevent this?

[youdamushi]

Can the miners block it?
Cause otherwise finding it is cool but not effective :/
And even if they want, would they?
Is it possible that miners are doing those spams attacks themselves just to rise the price of transactions ?

why would miners want to block these? they don't care and they are benefiting from this double time. first is the fact that these transactions each contain a fee 0.0001469BTC
also when this happens, mempool is filled, regular users who were adding normal fee are waiting for their transactions to confirm for hours so they start competing with each other and increase the fees.
result: miners earn even more from fees.

i think the possibility of this being miners themselves is low. it may be a group of people wanting to force the increase of block size (don't know which proposal they are supporting though!)

They could want to block it simply because i bet everytime those spam attacks occures we lose btc users.
The more time is needed for every tx, the less efficient btc seems to be. It hurts btc legitimacy as a currency.

But yeah you answered me, miners could even be responsible for that because they benefit highly from this.

[franky1]

yes an intentional spam attack is when one entity is respending funds as soon as it confirms..
there is no logical reason to respend so fast.

this kind of thing could be mitigated by having transactions have a 1-6 block maturity after confirm. instead of using 'economics' to cost people out of utility.

that way the code protection of spamming harms less innocent people while actually reducing the malicious parties.
but hey the devs decided to do what banks do best. charge people more rather then have proper safeguards for protection. (they are doing the same stupid economic mindset in their LN project too.. avoiding using real code protections and instead letting economic penalties dissuade malice)

[youdamushi]

yes an intentional spam attack is when one entity is respending funds as soon as it confirms..
there is no logical reason to respend so fast.

this kind of thing could be mitigated by having transactions have a 1-6 block maturity after confirm. instead of using 'economics' to cost people out of utility.

that way the code protection of spamming harms less innocent people while actually reducing the malicious parties.
but hey the devs decided to do what banks do best. charge people more rather then have proper safeguards for protection. (they are doing the same stupid economic mindset in their LN project too.. avoiding using real code protections and instead letting economic penalties dissuade malice)

Which is extremely sad...
I got the impress that btc is becoming more and more the exact same thing than normal currency...
People are even asking for btc banks for god sake ><

[Zadicar]

Can the miners block it?
Cause otherwise finding it is cool but not effective :/
And even if they want, would they?
Is it possible that miners are doing those spams attacks themselves just to rise the price of transactions ?

why would miners want to block these? they don't care and they are benefiting from this double time. first is the fact that these transactions each contain a fee 0.0001469BTC
also when this happens, mempool is filled, regular users who were adding normal fee are waiting for their transactions to confirm for hours so they start competing with each other and increase the fees.
result: miners earn even more from fees.

i think the possibility of this being miners themselves is low. it may be a group of people wanting to force the increase of block size (don't know which proposal they are supporting though!)

Miners wont really stop those transaction since they could able to make more money on that.Infact i would say that miners do really like instead of complaining on the spam transaction and for OP you are good to find that address which do make multiple transactions which causes the spam and for sure there are more addresses that did the same thing.

[BrewMaster]

this kind of thing could be mitigated by having transactions have a 1-6 block maturity after confirm. instead of using 'economics' to cost people out of utility.

not gonna help because they are not spamming with 1 address or with small amount of funds. they have always used hundreds of addresses (both when it was 10K satoshi with 10K fee and now as you can see in that address) and they have a large amount of funding. and a 1BTC can be divided up to lots of small amounts. so they wait 1-6 or whatever number of blocks and then spend it and move to next batch.

6 conf is approximately an hour and it won't matter for the spammers but will screw users.

[franky1]

yes an intentional spam attack is when one entity is respending funds as soon as it confirms..
there is no logical reason to respend so fast.

this kind of thing could be mitigated by having transactions have a 1-6 block maturity after confirm. instead of using 'economics' to cost people out of utility.

that way the code protection of spamming harms less innocent people while actually reducing the malicious parties.
but hey the devs decided to do what banks do best. charge people more rather then have proper safeguards for protection. (they are doing the same stupid economic mindset in their LN project too.. avoiding using real code protections and instead letting economic penalties dissuade malice)

Which is extremely sad...
I got the impress that btc is becoming more and more the exact same thing than normal currency...
People are even asking for btc banks for god sake ><

yep LN for instance..
when withdrawing out of LN (settling) even when the settlement tx is confirmed LN want to have a 3-5day maturity (CLTV) where funds are unspendable. that way it still gives the other party 3-5 days to take the funds back as a chargeback (CSV revoke).
other penanties exist while inside an LN contract, which all LN contracts need second party authorisation. LN is paypal2.0 once people start pricing up the internal 'hop' penalties/fee's and start using hubs to decrease the penalties/fee's.

[franky1]

this kind of thing could be mitigated by having transactions have a 1-6 block maturity after confirm. instead of using 'economics' to cost people out of utility.

not gonna help because they are not spamming with 1 address or with small amount of funds. they have always used hundreds of addresses (both when it was 10K satoshi with 10K fee and now as you can see in that address) and they have a large amount of funding. and a 1BTC can be divided up to lots of small amounts. so they wait 1-6 or whatever number of blocks and then spend it and move to next batch.

but imagine it this way. instead of 100 addresses sending out and respending every 10 minutes. they have to wait an hour.
imagine if they tried to respend right at that 6th block. the next maturity is 2 hours..

where as everyone else that only spends once or twice a day, or week or month never gets maturity locked out, because it matures before they need to respend. but know they can respend because the waiting time is AFTER confirm.. thus they know they have been paid. instead of the current setup that delays due to spam leave them waiting before confirm and unsure if they will be even paid..

thus ethical people can spend when they want and malicious people are ending up having to wait.. and its all done by code rules.. not 'fees'

[dhampir-D]

Good job finding this. I have noticed an unusual amount of users opening threads here in the forum in the last 24 hours, complaining about transaction confirmation delays.
At first I thought it was a troll. But now I see what the problem is. This can also be one of the reasons for the panic selling in the market.

[BrewMaster]

but imagine it this way. instead of 100 addresses sending out and respending every 10 minutes. they have to wait an hour.
imagine if they tried to respend right at that 6th block. the next maturity is 2 hours..

where as everyone else that only spends once or twice a day, or week or month never gets maturity locked out, because it matures before they need to respend. but know they can respend because the waiting time is AFTER confirm.. thus they know they have been paid. instead of the current setup that delays due to spam leave them waiting before confirm and unsure if they will be even paid..

thus ethical people can spend when they want and malicious people are ending up having to wait.. and its all done by code rules.. not 'fees'

the problem is that they are not using "100" not even "1000" addresses. it goes so much deeper than that.

here is the last time this happened:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=553487;sa=showPosts
this is the tip of the iceberg and there are about 820 keys there used in the spam attack, each address containing lots of transactions (about 10K to 40K outputs) to spend.

and this is only the private keys they released to fool others into making transactions with the inputs and join in the attack. they also had other addresses which were sending out transactions on a massive scale.

[franky1]

but imagine it this way. instead of 100 addresses sending out and respending every 10 minutes. they have to wait an hour.
imagine if they tried to respend right at that 6th block. the next maturity is 2 hours..

where as everyone else that only spends once or twice a day, or week or month never gets maturity locked out, because it matures before they need to respend. but know they can respend because the waiting time is AFTER confirm.. thus they know they have been paid. instead of the current setup that delays due to spam leave them waiting before confirm and unsure if they will be even paid..

thus ethical people can spend when they want and malicious people are ending up having to wait.. and its all done by code rules.. not 'fees'

the problem is that they are not using "100" not even "1000" addresses. it goes so much deeper than that.

here is the last time this happened:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=553487;sa=showPosts
this is the tip of the iceberg and there are about 820 keys there used in the spam attack, each address containing lots of transactions (about 10K to 40K outputs) to spend.

and this is only the private keys they released to fool others into making transactions with the inputs and join in the attack. they also had other addresses which were sending out transactions on a massive scale.

thats where
one guy makes a single TX of say $1 to send to 1000 addresses of $0.001 .. and thats it. game over.

but other spam attacks that cause more hassle long term is where
one guy makes a TX of say $1001 to send to 1000 addresses of $1

then 10 minutes later sends all them $1 transactions to another address combining the funds
then 10 minutes later splitting the funds back to $1..
then 10 minutes later sends all them $1 transactions to another address combining the funds
then 10 minutes later splitting the funds back to $1..
then 10 minutes later sends all them $1 transactions to another address combining the funds

endlessly.
this is when devs think they can mitigate this type of spam attack by raising the fee to make the guy lose alot of his $1000 investment each time he respends.. but the reality is that it just prices ethical/moral people out of using bitcoin less often.

however a maturity lock stops this endless spam without the 'penalty' hurting innocent people