Are Mining pools spamming the network with fake transactions?

[amacar2]

Look at how empty it all became once Bitcoin Unlimited started looking scary and confident.

This is true, i am 100% sure that all those network congestion were created by either mining pools or individuals that are supporting BTU, we may again see same level of spam on network from them after few days again.  

[Tesorex]

You should mark and ban any miner intentionally mining spam transactions and is not helping the network.

[Amph]

i don't think so, unless you think that bitcoin can not genuinely grow its user base and have more transaction per second, let's face it bitcoin will eventually have million of transaction per sec if we want it to be adopted

also only antpool was with bitcoin unlimited, why you are including all other pools? i'm not aware of other pool that were supporting bitcoin unlimited, and even antpool was only directing 75% of his hash

also the number of TX on blockchaininfo, was at 2k per block since many months, and i don't remember any strong BU argument back then

[ImHash]

If user base continue to grow we'll face an unfair increase of fees over time, however I think increasing the block size without maintaining the responsibility of securing the network is harmful, bigger the block size=harder to securing the blocks=more computing power needed.
SW thought about that already and implemented the required measures.

We all should find the honest pools and broadcast our transactions through their connected honest nodes.
More than 2700 transactions and all sending the same amount to the same address and one unparsed output.
Maybe they are mixing coins?

[Dimelord]

Are Mining pools spamming the network with fake transactions to prop up transaction fees and push a false narrative about full blocks to support BU and usurp the power to adjust block size?
Or am I just crazy?  Its my personal belief that 80 to 90% of all transactions are fake.

Yes,some one is deliberately sending 750BTC back and forth for every 5 seconds.It adds more traffic to the bitcoin transactions.This transaction comes with a high transaction fees forcing others also to pay such fees for speeding up their transactions.Such an attack during the tension between core and BU is to be noticed.Miners may get higher fees.But its not good for bitcoin progress.People may start to chose other altcoins which has low transaction fees and fast transactions.

[SONG GEET]

You should mark and ban any miner intentionally mining spam transactions and is not helping the network.

There is no way to prove this and actually there is no way to banned any miner from mining bitcoin. Bitcoin transactions are completely anonymous so even if those mining pool are just mining their own transactions than nobody gonna know about it.

[Catmony]

Are Mining pools spamming the network with fake transactions to prop up transaction fees and push a false narrative about full blocks to support BU and usurp the power to adjust block size?

Don't know about other mining pools or mining farms, but viabtc is actually prioritizing transactions that are included in their database through their tx accelerator service in an attempt to support BU. Don't know we can consider this as spamming network with tx they like while neglecting other tx but they are doing it from several weeks.

[Technicality]

Are Mining pools spamming the network with fake transactions to prop up transaction fees and push a false narrative about full blocks to support BU and usurp the power to adjust block size?

Don't know about other mining pools or mining farms, but viabtc is actually prioritizing transactions that are included in their database through their tx accelerator service in an attempt to support BU. Don't know we can consider this as spamming network with tx they like while neglecting other tx but they are doing it from several weeks.

Their transaction accelerator service is a good thing for people who make mistakes or feel that their fees are too high to deal with for small transactions, and I don't think that that's a problem even if it is with their clear allegiance.  I also wouldn't call it spamming the network with transactions because the transactions are nearly all legitimate and done through other people.

[mr.mister]

Mining pools are what screwed up btc to begin with. They should not be permitted, regardless of their benefits. Miners should be on their own, without any pools, then we would not have this looming threat of a fork that is coming. Satoshi did not have mining pools in mind when he designed it. Mining pools also threaten decentralization.

[HanSchultz]

It is true that we are seeing more fake transactions in the past few months and the network difficulty started with these sort of transactions that clogged the network and the people behind these attacks were planning to implement their will,be it BU or Segwit and so is the reason to create frustration and panic among common users.

[sickpig]

i don't think so, unless you think that bitcoin can not genuinely grow its user base and have more transaction per second, let's face it bitcoin will eventually have million of transaction per sec if we want it to be adopted

also only antpool was with bitcoin unlimited, why you are including all other pools? i'm not aware of other pool that were supporting bitcoin unlimited, and even antpool was only directing 75% of his hash

also the number of TX on blockchaininfo, was at 2k per block since many months, and i don't remember any strong BU argument back then

dunno if millions of txn per second is a correct figure.

about mining pools backing BU, the list is sure longer: gbminers, btc.top, viabtc, bitcoin.com, canoepool, bitclub and of course AntPool.

[-ck]

about mining pools backing BU, the list is sure longer: gbminers, btc.top, viabtc, bitcoin.com, canoepool, bitclub and of course AntPool.

Just to elaborate further, antpool is dedicating 75% of its hashrate to BU, and bitclub being in that list is an error; I know doin.dance is listing them but it's wrong. They're definitely advertising segwit only.

[Tigggger]

Mining pools are what screwed up btc to begin with. They should not be permitted, regardless of their benefits. Miners should be on their own, without any pools, then we would not have this looming threat of a fork that is coming. Satoshi did not have mining pools in mind when he designed it. Mining pools also threaten decentralization.

I'd disagree, how would forcing everyone to solo mine help decentralisation ?

The big farms would still have the same chances of finding blocks daily so it wouldn't affect them, but the small miners that are the decentralisation (what little of it there is) are hit worse, for an example someone with an S9 @ 12.5TH would on average wait over 5 years to find a block, that would surely reduce the number of users, burning all that electric everyday and with an ever increasing diff you may never hit one.

As much as most users hate centralisation, it's the hardware not the pools that is the cause. CPU -> GPU -> FPGA -> ASIC as we moved down the line the more centralisation occurred.

[-ck]

As much as most users hate centralisation, it's the hardware not the pools that is the cause. CPU -> GPU -> FPGA -> ASIC as we moved down the line the more centralisation occurred.

And that's not true either. The most centralised it ever was (after becoming more than just a fringe between a handful of people) was when the deepbit pool had about 50% of the network hashrate which was in the GPU (and a lesser extent still CPU) days. Assuming all pools are actually discrete entities at the moment and not just one bigger entity masquerading as multiple entities, it is actually more distributed now than it was in the GPU days. It is not the hardware, nor is it the mining algorithm, it's the fact that pooled mining can (and will) occur. There is talk of ways around it, but I've yet to see a concrete way to make it truly impossible to pool proof of work.

[Tigggger]

As much as most users hate centralisation, it's the hardware not the pools that is the cause. CPU -> GPU -> FPGA -> ASIC as we moved down the line the more centralisation occurred.

And that's not true either. The most centralised it ever was (after becoming more than just a fringe between a handful of people) was when the deepbit pool had about 50% of the network hashrate which was in the GPU (and a lesser extent still CPU) days.

But wasn't that during the changeover period, once GPU mining was established didn't it spread out again, I don't recall the deepbit pool was it just one user ?  There was a time when btcguild and ghash both got very high but in the former that was lots of users and the latter some split between their own hashrate and users

Assuming all pools are actually discrete entities at the moment and not just one bigger entity masquerading as multiple entities, it is actually more distributed now than it was in the GPU days. It is not the hardware, nor is it the mining algorithm, it's the fact that pooled mining can (and will) occur. There is talk of ways around it, but I've yet to see a concrete way to make it truly impossible to pool proof of work.

Not sure if I'm not 'getting it' or we are on about different things, but when I say centralisation I mean the number of individual users (as a percentage of hashrate).  It's decentralised by the fact that there are many more machines sure, it's also decentralised as there are more individual users than before, but the current top 10 pools which are the bulk of the hashrate are mainly private.

As the technology has moved on so has the ability for groups to control greater percentages, even with and I suppose despite of an increase in users.