[1000 unconfirmed transaction] Spam attack has practically ended for 2 days!

[pooya87]

~
yeah, so do we:
A) increase the blocksize so the spammers have to do WAY more transactions, making it more expensive for the spammers, while simultaneously increasing bandwidth for everyone
or
B) keep the blocksize and just increase the fees so its more expensive for everyone to transaction, while not increasing bandwidth for anyone
Answer should be pretty clear.

first of all you are just trying to make this topic into another one of "those" topics
also the answer is apparently not clear or we have switched already

but seriously, how much are you going to increase the size. 500 byte? 1000? 5000? and what will you do when fees came down and spam attack became easier? fees are 220ish s/b if it goes down to say 50 that means 1 spam tx turns into 4-5 txs and you successfully quadrippled the spam attack with the fork

nobody is more mad of the high fees than i and i am all for a block size increase though, i think 1 MB is reaching (not reached) its end but it can not be done without a proper plan. so far this spam is being used as a weapon to pretend we need fork(s).

well, maybe i was paying too much but all of my transactions absolutely flew today.

we have been going back and forth with the spam size.

[jonald_fyookball]

snip

there's nothing i can say at this point that hasn't been said before.  Problem and solution is obvious.

[Sadlife]

Is this legit?
The timing for the attack with the current events happening right now like the hardfork and BU nodes crashing seems perfect lol
Perhaps this was payback from those guys who got there codes exploited from the recent BU network attack. So why did the spam stop already?

[pooya87]

Is this legit?
The timing for the attack with the current events happening right now like the hardfork and BU nodes crashing seems perfect lol
Perhaps this was payback from those guys who got there codes exploited from the recent BU network attack. So why did the spam stop already?

have you been sleeping for the past year! this is not new. spam attack has been around for a rather long time. started with them calling it "stress test" back in 2015 (or maybe it was even older and i missed it) and has been coming and going ever since.

see some examples of them here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1776143.0

[Carlton Banks]

Problem and solution is obvious.

So, the problem is that more on-chain transaction capacity is needed (which is highly debatable, considering there's good evidence it's all spam driven)


So the obvious solution is to make the transactions and their signatures smaller, so that we can have more capacity per block.

[AngryDwarf]

PPC

this one's a really interesting one. it's bizarre that it's semi forgotten when it's been so innovative.

I think their users died whist waiting for their peercoin to mint.

[dinofelis]

PPC

this one's a really interesting one. it's bizarre that it's semi forgotten when it's been so innovative.

I think their users died whist waiting for their peercoin to mint.

 Souvenirs

Back then I thought this was a killer coin.  I never understood why it didn't take off.  Probably too advanced too soon, while "bitcoin was god".

[Lauda]

They might not be real financial transactions, but they may be transactions that utilise the blockchain to store immutable data. That may or may not be spam depending on your viewpoint.

It is spam. End of discussion.

B) keep the blocksize and just increase the fees so its more expensive for everyone to transaction, while not increasing bandwidth for anyone
-snip-

Segwit is an block size increase. Quit your whining.

LTC, PPC , NMC.

Those are good examples, but the interest for them seems to be lacking nowadays. Everyone wants to profit from the ETH & DASH scam coins.

So, the problem is that more on-chain transaction capacity is needed (which is highly debatable, considering there's good evidence it's all spam driven)


So the obvious solution is to make the transactions and their signatures smaller, so that we can have more capacity per block.

Ironically the people who stated that they care about the *user experience* are the ones who made it worse by introducing extreme volatility with their HF propaganda.

[jonald_fyookball]

B) keep the blocksize and just increase the fees so its more expensive for everyone to transaction, while not increasing bandwidth for anyone
-snip-

Segwit is an block size increase. Quit your whining.
 

my response:

Yes, segwit does do that -- but its a fairly modest increase that is coming pretty late...so we may still get congestion... and on core's terms instead of letting the market decide...  And it may not even activate.   ...And it greatly increases the complexity of the code. ...And it only helps to the degree to which wallets use it, which is only partial for now.

Like I said - THEIR roadmap.  They are giving a tiny bit of on chain scaling, maybe, eventually... while they work on LN.   

[leopard2]

LTC, PPC , NMC.

Those are good examples, but the interest for them seems to be lacking nowadays. Everyone wants to profit from the ETH & DASH scam coins.

And each one of them has been around for a long time, a huge hashpower behind it, and could replace Bitcoin immediately.

Yes it seems that today it is all about being fashionable