Spam attack again

[unamis76]

Spam attack causes another 60k fake pump in unconfirmed transactions to keep pumping whatever trash narrative the attacker wants to push.

Meanwhile bad miners keep blocking progress (segwit + LN, in order to allow for mainstream bitcoin usage).

Sad!!

There's no trash narrative to this, if someone is spamming the network, the only narrative he wants to come across is that we need to scale. If this is a good way to have the message go across or not, that's questionable, and a different issue.

So you fancy living to 120+ years.

Either that or fancy having our descendants still using Bitcoin...

[1715037576]

1715037576

[1715037576]

1715037576

[1715037576]

1715037576

[1715037576]

1715037576

[1715037576]

1715037576

[topesis]

This is getting crazy, I believe there is a set of mafia in the space trying to have their way using this spam attack, 60 unconfirmed transaction. I believe these people will lose this battle at the end because Bitcoin belongs to the USERS

[The One]

Spam attack causes another 60k fake pump in unconfirmed transactions to keep pumping whatever trash narrative the attacker wants to push.

Meanwhile bad miners keep blocking progress (segwit + LN, in order to allow for mainstream bitcoin usage).

Sad!!

Another stats one should be aware of. The number of transaction alone isn't important. The amount of mb the mempool is fascinating to watch. Last week or so i had around 30k transactions but 85mb.

[franky1]

So you fancy living to 120+ years. In an old people home trading BTC or chilling out enjoying your retirement when 1 BTC = $1m+. Agree with the long-term outlook which is more important than the current fiasco. How would you solve the current dilemma for the next two years, in order to allow a long-term plan to debated in a mature manner?

a version with all the bells and whistle.
this means all the new keypair types blockstream want (still opt-in voluntary)
but because its a proper node and pool consensus..
1merkle block (everyone sees and handles the same data..)(non of this 1mb base 4 weight crap)
just a single block limit that is dynamic based on non mining node capability..

the non mining node
consensus.h (adjusts over time dependant on speed test averages) EG 8mb block limit
policy.h user variable amount (dynamically variable) EG 1mb-> consensus.h
useragent displays these amount to allow a network over view of whats possible

that way it doesnt go over the top out of control straight to 8mb and stays within reasonable tolerances of what nodes can handle/prefer
EG 75% of nodes show c:8mb p:2mb+, so pools only go upto 2mb and it prompts the users below p:2mb to update their policy preference(what useragent displays)

..
other features
- txsigoplimit 4k or less forever - mitigates native key txsigop quadratic scares
- nodes have a speed test measuring: a new block appearing, downloading and verifying. and the score is then averaged over 2016 blocks to get an average propagation time to then help discover what can be handled.
- users have more personal control of their node settings at runtime without needing to download new versions just to change a limit
- new priority fee formulae that actually does something more fairly
- at initial load/sync. nodes request a UTXO set FIRST to run as a lite client. thus the syncing is not felt like 'wait till complete to spend' and more of a 'spend while you wait' thing. (solving the main gripe of waiting to sync(lack of utility))

[Quantus]

You can put a stop to this just support Sigwit. This spam is coming from the chines mining pools. Making blocks larger would just increase their profit margins. The larger blocks get the more advantage they gain.

[SONG GEET]

This is getting crazy, I believe there is a set of mafia in the space trying to have their way using this spam attack, 60 unconfirmed transaction. I believe these people will lose this battle at the end because Bitcoin belongs to the USERS

I strongly believe all this spam transactions are coming form BU supporters.
Few days ago mempool was almost empty and out of sudden they are full with unconfirmed transactions this is good sign of intentional spam attacks.

[Iranus]

Boom!.... enter the BU pumpers and spoils a good discussion again.  ...... Bitcoin being pseudo anonymous, makes things difficult for people

to pinpoint who are behind these attacks. We might even have someone without "hidden" agendas doing this. There have been companies doing

tests on the Blockchain for other projects not related to the BU vs BTC Core fight and these tests were causing spam. 

Seems pretty unlikely that any significant project would be going on from anyone without a specific agenda.

The only incentive anyone would have to spam the network is to make the situation appear more desperate than it is and pressure Bitcoiners to reach a consensus.  That could be from BU or Core supporters, but in either case it's not representative of the solution's overall supporters.

[Harry Callahan]

These sort of attacks are now a common occurrence so that people gets frustrated and create some uncertainty among the users,so that some can take the advantage when there is a price movement simply because of that and may be that is the reason they are willing to spend a lot of money to  create these sort of dust transaction just to cluster the network.

[sikke]

These sort of attacks are now a common occurrence so that people gets frustrated and create some uncertainty among the users,so that some can take the advantage when there is a price movement simply because of that and may be that is the reason they are willing to spend a lot of money to  create these sort of dust transaction just to cluster the network.

That is why these attack are occuring sometimes, some groups of people want to persuade the others to their idea, but they are suffering for the lack of the arguments, so they decide to make a traffic on blockchain network, which is extremely annoying for every bitcoin user.

Without any good solution, we will suffer because such of attack more often, if it is so easy to cluster the blockchain network, then it will happen more usually, as a way to force community to do some things, such as increase of the fee ( you have to increase it during such a traffic, unless you want to wait for a reaaaally long time ).

[mrcash02]

For you, how many satoshis a transaction has to be considered a spammed one?

[Mvaporis1961]

spam or not, raise the blocksize dummy.  That's the only option.

Yes we can do this blocksize enlargement for bigger transaction pool and to lessesn the unconfirmed transactions even thou it is a spam fake pump or what ever it is.Larger blocksize would help alot but i think enlarging block size will be hard.But still possible though

[Rahar02]

Spam attack causes another 60k fake pump in unconfirmed transactions to keep pumping whatever trash narrative the attacker wants to push.

Meanwhile bad miners keep blocking progress (segwit + LN, in order to allow for mainstream bitcoin usage).

Sad!!

spam or not, raise the blocksize dummy.  That's the only option.

Wow, another spam flood transactions again? I didn't see it when unconfirmed transaction reach 60K, but less than 12 hours last time I checked it ; from 10K unconfirmed and now become 39K unconfirmed transaction.
Yes, I think increase block size limit at least 2Mb will make it better as miners could process a lot of transactions faster without leaving so much behind.