Burst attack (message spam) Ideas to stop it.

[helipotte]

Thread to post ideas for wallet update to stop the message spam attack on Burst.  I think messages should increasingly cost more with in a 1 minute time frame.

Maybe double the fee for every message sent in that time frame from the same address.  Allowing the blocking of certain senders might help as well.

Thoughts?

[1714772078]

1714772078

[1714772078]

1714772078

[1714772078]

1714772078

[bathrobehero]

It's unlikely a time restriction could work. You can tell the wallet whatever time you want.

Also, people can easily have hundreds of addresses to spam so same address restrictions are also useless.

It seems to me that messages are simiar to transactions and we have transaction size limits, block size limits and transaction fees for the same reason - to combat spam.

[helipotte]

It's unlikely a time restriction could work. You can tell the wallet whatever time you want.

Also, people can easily have hundreds of addresses to spam so same address restrictions are also useless.

It seems to me that messages are simiar to transactions and we have transaction size limits, block size limits and transaction fees for the same reason - to combat spam.

Interesting.  What about a protocol built into the wallet that auto blocks/bans addresses that send more that x number of messages in y amount of time?  The spammer attacking Burst seems to not care about the cost.

[bathrobehero]

It's unlikely a time restriction could work. You can tell the wallet whatever time you want.

Also, people can easily have hundreds of addresses to spam so same address restrictions are also useless.

It seems to me that messages are simiar to transactions and we have transaction size limits, block size limits and transaction fees for the same reason - to combat spam.

Interesting.  What about a protocol built into the wallet that auto blocks/bans addresses that send more that x number of messages in y amount of time?  The spammer attacking Burst seems to not care about the cost.

That could work. It's certainly much harder/more expensive to control hundreds of IP addresses in order to attack the network.

Banning badly behaving nodes are built into most wallets AFAIK, so it should be viable to include new rules regarding messages spam.

[rigel]

NEM whitepaper ( http://nem.io/NEM_techRef.pdf ) describes a possible fair solution.

To make it easy: it raises fees for everybody, in particular for accounts making many transactions and accounts with low budget.

[imhoneer]

The solution must be comprehensive. To fight spam, you need to make it unprofitable. Here is the quote:

- compensation for an unplayed transaction for a certain time. Even if the user's transaction has not passed, then he receives compensation for this. This allows you to reduce the negative experience of using the network and show your responsible attitude to this person.

- Spam attacks by transactions. Strangely enough, but from spam attacks, transactions are good for everyone except this spammer. Blockmakers receive a part of the commission from each block, moreover, thanks to the auction, this amount is maximum, users whose transactions do not pass receive compensation, and our spammer pays maximum for all this pleasure.

For more information click here New cryptocurrency Crypto stash (POA). Get together!