mempool 70k+ and growing fast.

[Quantus]

This another spam attack? Looks like it started 4 days ago. http://statoshi.info/dashboard/db/transactions

[Zicadis]

This another spam attack? Looks like it started 4 days ago. http://statoshi.info/dashboard/db/transactions

this spam attack seems to be working...i have had a couple of transactions fall off and viabtc.com/tools/txaccelerator/ keeps notifying me that transaction does not exist

perhaps its time to make some improvements on the bitcoin network to speed up things
_______________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________

Just out of curiosity with such huge backlogs why dont we have more mining pools created to help alleviate this tx problem we facing

[The Sceptical Chymist]

This another spam attack? Looks like it started 4 days ago. http://statoshi.info/dashboard/db/transactions

this spam attack seems to be working...i have had a couple of transactions fall off and viabtc.com/tools/txaccelerator/ keeps notifying me that transaction does not exist

Ditto here; I'm waiting for some bitcoin to make it over to my wallet...and it's been jammed up in the network for about 2 days.  viabtc wouldn't let me enter the tx id in there, either.  It kind of sucks when a small group of people can do this to the network.  You sound like you have a reasonable suggestion, but I'm not technical-minded enough to understand it.  It would be nice if the people who DO understand the technicals would get some consensus and fix the problem.

[Carlton Banks]

this spam attack seems to be working...i have had a couple of transactions fall off and viabtc.com/tools/txaccelerator/ keeps notifying me that transaction does not exist

Ditto here; I'm waiting for some bitcoin to make it over to my wallet...and it's been jammed up in the network for about 2 days.  viabtc wouldn't let me enter the tx id in there, either.  It kind of sucks when a small group of people can do this to the network.  You sound like you have a reasonable suggestion, but I'm not technical-minded enough to understand it.  It would be nice if the people who DO understand the technicals would get some consensus and fix the problem.

There's nothing stopping either of you from learning how it works, it's sort of crazy to get involved in something like this and let everyone else do the thinking for you. And FYI, Zicadis has zero clue, adding more pools (or more mining hashrate in general) makes negligible difference to the speed that transactions get processed. If you don't know what you're talking about, please, either learn, or be quiet.

[eternalgloom]

this spam attack seems to be working...i have had a couple of transactions fall off and viabtc.com/tools/txaccelerator/ keeps notifying me that transaction does not exist

Ditto here; I'm waiting for some bitcoin to make it over to my wallet...and it's been jammed up in the network for about 2 days.  viabtc wouldn't let me enter the tx id in there, either.  It kind of sucks when a small group of people can do this to the network.  You sound like you have a reasonable suggestion, but I'm not technical-minded enough to understand it.  It would be nice if the people who DO understand the technicals would get some consensus and fix the problem.

There's nothing stopping either of you from learning how it works, it's sort of crazy to get involved in something like this and let everyone else do the thinking for you. And FYI, Zicadis has zero clue, adding more pools (or more mining hashrate in general) makes negligible difference to the speed that transactions get processed. If you don't know what you're talking about, please, either learn, or be quiet.

You can't stop people who do not have any technical expertise from chiming in with their comments. At least the guy was upfront, saying that he isn't 'technical-minded enough', his main point was that he wants people to reach consensus and fix the problem.

Which isn't a bad comment in my opinion!

[Hazir]

And now imagine if Bitcoin blocks were 2 MB instead of 1 MB, what will it change against spam attack of that caliber exactly?
It was said that legitimate use of block space is around 70% rest is unsanctioned use - mostly spam.
My question: do we have any scaling solution which will take care of obvious attempts to cripple BTC network?

[Quantus]

And now imagine if Bitcoin blocks were 2 MB instead of 1 MB, what will it change against spam attack of that caliber exactly?
It was said that legitimate use of block space is around 70% rest is unsanctioned use - mostly spam.
My question: do we have any scaling solution which will take care of obvious attempts to cripple BTC network?

It was just a few weeks ago the network was running at like 5% of capacity for days. Its my personal belief the network runs at about 10% of capacity when its not under spam attacks.
It's my personal belief the majority of the spam is coming from the Chines mining pools running ASIC-boot. I have zero proof of this but why else would these attacks continue so routinely when we all know they must cost a lot of money; unless of course you're a large mining operation with ASIC-boost.

[richardsNY]

Chances are high that this spam attack is coming from the same entity that has been spamming the network back in early February. Quite some addresses from back then are being reused to fuel this spam attack. It's an easy target to point at, but I can't think of an entity that is willing to pump serious money into spamming the network other than the BU gang.

[Quantus]

Hypothetically What would give someone an incentive to spam the network like this?
Could it be an exchange looking to lower the price so they can buy back in?
Maybe these spam attacks are even sold as a service to large investors. Mining pools could easily accommodate such an request for a nominal fee of course.
"Pay me 'X' and I will slow the network, this will sow fear in the community and the price will drop"

[jonald_fyookball]

Its my personal belief the network runs at about 10% of capacity when its not under spam attacks. 

10% of capacity?  No man...  Look at the average size of the blocks.  Just because the mempool isn't overflowed doesn't mean the blocks are only 10% full.

[bettercrypto]

Hypothetically What would give someone an incentive to spam the network like this?
Could it be an exchange looking to lower the price so they can buy back in?
Maybe these spam attacks are even sold as a service to large investors. Mining pools could easily accommodate such an request for a nominal fee of course.
"Pay me 'X' and I will slow the network, this will sow fear in the community and the price will drop"

This is part of the political agenda though we do not know who is spamming the network but this is for sure to make the community pressure the developer to either implement Segwit or Blocksize increase.  I wonder if one of the two suggestion can halt this kind of attack if it was implemented.

[jonald_fyookball]

Hypothetically What would give someone an incentive to spam the network like this?
Could it be an exchange looking to lower the price so they can buy back in?
Maybe these spam attacks are even sold as a service to large investors. Mining pools could easily accommodate such an request for a nominal fee of course.
"Pay me 'X' and I will slow the network, this will sow fear in the community and the price will drop"

This is part of the political agenda though we do not know who is spamming the network but this is for sure to make the community pressure the developer to either implement Segwit or Blocksize increase.  I wonder if one of the two suggestion can halt this kind of attack if it was implemented.

read Alex.BTC's post on why this attack is so easy to do in the absence of more capacity.

[Quantus]

Hypothetically What would give someone an incentive to spam the network like this?
Could it be an exchange looking to lower the price so they can buy back in?
Maybe these spam attacks are even sold as a service to large investors. Mining pools could easily accommodate such an request for a nominal fee of course.
"Pay me 'X' and I will slow the network, this will sow fear in the community and the price will drop"

This is part of the political agenda though we do not know who is spamming the network but this is for sure to make the community pressure the developer to either implement Segwit or Blocksize increase.  I wonder if one of the two suggestion can halt this kind of attack if it was implemented.

Well larger blocks would not stop spam attacks or even make them cost much more. But with segwit theoretically companies like mcdonalds, Wall-Mart or even that little coffee shop off main street you like so much could setup a side chains so customers could fund accounts so you can buy coffee every morning with little to no fee and then any money you don't spend at the end of the month gets sent back to your main wallet address at the end of the month. To my understanding thats how it would work. My very limited understanding... The companies would be responsible for security and spam attacks on their side chains.

[jonald_fyookball]

Hypothetically What would give someone an incentive to spam the network like this?
Could it be an exchange looking to lower the price so they can buy back in?
Maybe these spam attacks are even sold as a service to large investors. Mining pools could easily accommodate such an request for a nominal fee of course.
"Pay me 'X' and I will slow the network, this will sow fear in the community and the price will drop"

This is part of the political agenda though we do not know who is spamming the network but this is for sure to make the community pressure the developer to either implement Segwit or Blocksize increase.  I wonder if one of the two suggestion can halt this kind of attack if it was implemented.

Well larger blocks would not stop spam attacks or even make them cost much more. 

Half correct.

They would not stop them for sure, but they would make them cost much more since there is so much more block space to fill.  With mostly-full blocks now, there's only a tiny amount of space a spammer needs, and after that, they can use the smallest fee possible that would allow a tx to remain in a mempool.

[Quantus]

Its my personal belief the network runs at about 10% of capacity when its not under spam attacks.  

10% of capacity?  No man...  Look at the average size of the blocks.  Just because the mempool isn't overflowed doesn't mean the blocks are only 10% full.

Blocks are being filled with fake transactions they are not legitimate transactions they don't propagate across the network like other transactions. They are created at the time the blocks are created inside the mining facilities by the miners to facilitate an efficiency boost for miners. (google ASIC-boost)

And increasing the block size would have virtually no affect on spam attacks, if you doubled the block size it would just make it cheaper to send transactions thus making it cheaper to send spam.




And just like that it looks like the attack has stopped or maybe just taking a break, I wonder how long it will take for the backlog to be cleared.

[anonymoustroll420]

And increasing the block size would have virtually no affect on spam attacks, if you doubled the block size it would just make it cheaper to send transactions thus making it cheaper to send spam.

It would actually make it worse. They would be able to make much spammier transactions due to the quadratic hashing problem (which segwit fixes) which could cause chainsplits.

[jonald_fyookball]

And increasing the block size would have virtually no affect on spam attacks, if you doubled the block size it would just make it cheaper to send transactions thus making it cheaper to send spam.

 

Not necessarily because lets say the fee was cut in half with double the number of tx... if blocks are 90% full on average, the extra 10% is all you need to overflow...
so its a 1:11 ratio.  You would need to have fees get 1100% cheaper before it would be the same cost.

[Quantus]

And increasing the block size would have virtually no affect on spam attacks, if you doubled the block size it would just make it cheaper to send transactions thus making it cheaper to send spam.

 

Not necessarily because lets say the fee was cut in half with double the number of tx... if blocks are 90% full on average, the extra 10% is all you need to overflow...
so its a 1:11 ratio.  You would need to have fees get 1100% cheaper before it would be the same cost.

This is why I call you a shill. No logical person could come up with such bull shit.

[jonald_fyookball]

And increasing the block size would have virtually no affect on spam attacks, if you doubled the block size it would just make it cheaper to send transactions thus making it cheaper to send spam.

 

Not necessarily because lets say the fee was cut in half with double the number of tx... if blocks are 90% full on average, the extra 10% is all you need to overflow...
so its a 1:11 ratio.  You would need to have fees get 1100% cheaper before it would be the same cost.

This is why I call you a shill. No logical person could come up with such bull shit.

Bullshit?  It's simple math you moron.

I'm not surprised -- you were the guy that a moment ago gave us this gem:

Its my personal belief the network runs at about 10% of capacity when its not under spam attacks. 

https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=90days

You might want to ask yourself why no major alt coin seems to have
an ongoing "spam problem".  Can't wait to see what your genius brain
comes up with.

[Quantus]

And increasing the block size would have virtually no affect on spam attacks, if you doubled the block size it would just make it cheaper to send transactions thus making it cheaper to send spam.

 

Not necessarily because lets say the fee was cut in half with double the number of tx... if blocks are 90% full on average, the extra 10% is all you need to overflow...
so its a 1:11 ratio.  You would need to have fees get 1100% cheaper before it would be the same cost.

This is why I call you a shill. No logical person could come up with such bull shit.

Bullshit?  It's simple math you moron.

I'm not surprised -- you were the guy that a moment ago gave us this gem:

Its my personal belief the network runs at about 10% of capacity when its not under spam attacks.  

https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=90days

You might want to ask yourself why no major alt coin seems to have
an ongoing "spam problem".  Can't wait to see what your genius brain
comes up with.

Proof your a shill
https://i.imgur.com/ib2xnNn.png