[2018-01-12] New Data Shows Coinbase May Be Spamming the Bitcoin Network

[tyz]

New Data Shows Coinbase May Be Spamming the Bitcoin Network

US exchange and wallet provider Coinbase is facing fresh criticism from both users and Bitcoin industry figures over its delayed SegWit adoption.

http://bitcoinist.com/mempool-coinbase-spamming-bitcoin/

[1715357080]

1715357080

[1715357080]

1715357080

[Carlton Banks]

I'm not sure if lack of Segwit use can really be described as "spamming the network". But Coinbase have always had a unnecessarily high fee for customer withdrawals onto the actual Bitcoin network, maybe that could be fairly labelled as spam. I think Coinbase still don't even aggregate withdrawals into single larger transactions, which would also be pretty spammy

[casparthefriendly]

I do think Coinbase (and other exchanges) lack of implementation of SegWit is have an effect on transactions fees because while someone can transmit from a SegWit wallet to a non-SegWit wallet they can't receive anything and thus are force to maintain (2) separate wallets and transfer the money back forth on the blockchain which is INCREDIBLY costly.

[richardsNY]

Another sensation based article. The only thing we can blame services in this market for, is the lacking will to adopt SegWit in full. Coinbase itself aside from SegWit can run its business in the way they think it's suitable. If others think this directly contributes to spam, which is quite an easy thing to do considering how large of a market player Coinbase is, then basically any other service running its business in the same way should be blamed as well. Spam in my opinion is creating nonsense transactions with the intention of having them stay unconfirmed for quite a long time, and no matter how you look at Coinbase's way of handling things, they can't be accused of that.

[odolvlobo]

Articles about reddit or twitter posts are stupid.

Anyway, this article is particularly stupid because it claims that the evidence of so-called spamming is that when Coinbase is sending transactions, the mempool is bigger than when it isn't sending transactions.

Hello? Of course it is. You wouldn't expect more transactions to magically reduce the size of the mempool, would you?

Of course, the real problem is that Coinbase has not implemented segwit and apparently does not batch transactions, and the result is higher fees that it passes on to its customers. This is really a Coinbase problem and not a Bitcoin problem because if people did not use Coinbase, the fees would still be just as high.

The article's click-bait claim that Coinbase is spamming the network is just a distraction.

[uslfd]

indeed im also wondering why sites / btc dealers as big as coinbase do not implement segwit fully.
what about when LN is available? Will they also upgrade accordingly?
Without them participating actively in btc's development it's going to drag btc development behind.

[jjacob]

Articles about reddit or twitter posts are stupid.

Anyway, this article is particularly stupid because it claims that the evidence of so-called spamming is that when Coinbase is sending transactions, the mempool is bigger than when it isn't sending transactions.

Hello? Of course it is. You wouldn't expect more transactions to magically reduce the size of the mempool, would you?

Of course, the real problem is that Coinbase has not implemented segwit and apparently does not batch transactions, and the result is higher fees that it passes on to its customers. This is really a Coinbase problem and not a Bitcoin problem because if people did not use Coinbase, the fees would still be just as high.

The article's click-bait claim that Coinbase is spamming the network is just a distraction.

Crypto news sites have to publish news about Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, irrespective of whether there is anything newsworthy or not. Hence articles about twitter and reddit posts.
Coinbase does need some engineering improvements, to ensure that segwit is implemented and that they are not holding too many small inputs. They could easily incentivize their engineers to come up with something.

[Carlton Banks]

Without them participating actively in btc's development it's going to drag btc development behind.

Lol, I think it would be better if Coinbase didn't do that.

The only time they've ever tried to involve themselves in Bitcoin development, they were pushing incredibly hard to make themselves (by proxy) in charge of everything (which was, of course, roundly rejected). Coinbase are pretty trashy characters, they always have been. The list of sketchy or unethical acts they've been involved with is pretty long.

[Kakmakr]

Coinbase's decision to add Bitcoin Cash, before they implemented SegWit was a clear indication to me that they are showing their alliance. The fact that they are sabotaging Bitcoin by not implementing measures to reduce congestion on the network <Batching> is further proof of their intent.

Coinbase will go the same route as Circle. <Building a userbase and changing business model>

[hatshepsut93]

I'm not sure if lack of Segwit use can really be described as "spamming the network". But Coinbase have always had a unnecessarily high fee for customer withdrawals onto the actual Bitcoin network, maybe that could be fairly labelled as spam. I think Coinbase still don't even aggregate withdrawals into single larger transactions, which would also be pretty spammy

You're right, spam is not exactly the right term here, what is happening here is that Coinbase maliciously refusing to optimize their transactions in order to either convince community that Bitcoin needs bigger blocks or that altcoins like Bcash and Ethereum are superior to Bitcoin because they have cheaper fees. And unlike with traditional spam attacks, Coinbase is using funds of their customers to fuel this attack, because most of the time it's them who are paying the fees.

[Lucius]

Coinbase's decision to add Bitcoin Cash, before they implemented SegWit was a clear indication to me that they are showing their alliance. The fact that they are sabotaging Bitcoin by not implementing measures to reduce congestion on the network <Batching> is further proof of their intent.

Coinbase will go the same route as Circle. <Building a userbase and changing business model>

There may be some truth in what you say,but I think it is still harder to implement SegWit then add BitcoinCash.But Coinbase has recently announced that they working on this issue and that users can expect SegWit in this year.Also Roger Ver and BCH crew obviously have a very strong influence even on Coinbase,and this situation wich we have with high BTC fees for some time goes to their advantage but also to many other altcoins.

When Coinbase add SegWit we will see how many differences will be in network congestion than what is now,surely some progress will be seen.

[webtricks]

Nothing could be worse than users using wallets not giving them private keys. Coinbase is one such example. They don't have anything special but still they claim themselves 'Wallet' over 'Exchange' becuase too many noobs still use them as their prime wallet.

Such reactions from users have given Coinbase immense power to do what ever they want. Even when they doing batch payments, still they take fees equivalent to solo payments. So they hardly care whether to adopt Segwit or not when they have enough to spam mempool. 

[J. Cooper]

I'm not sure if lack of Segwit use can really be described as "spamming the network". But Coinbase have always had a unnecessarily high fee for customer withdrawals onto the actual Bitcoin network, maybe that could be fairly labelled as spam. I think Coinbase still don't even aggregate withdrawals into single larger transactions, which would also be pretty spammy

You're right, spam is not exactly the right term here, what is happening here is that Coinbase maliciously refusing to optimize their transactions in order to either convince community that Bitcoin needs bigger blocks or that altcoins like Bcash and Ethereum are superior to Bitcoin because they have cheaper fees.

You can still argue that it can be considered spam since there's a solution they refuse to implement.

I'm not sure if lack of Segwit use can really be described as "spamming the network". But Coinbase have always had a unnecessarily high fee for customer withdrawals onto the actual Bitcoin network, maybe that could be fairly labelled as spam. I think Coinbase still don't even aggregate withdrawals into single larger transactions, which would also be pretty spammy

And unlike with traditional spam attacks, Coinbase is using funds of their customers to fuel this attack, because most of the time it's them who are paying the fees.

And that's exactly why we need more competition when it comes to these simple UI exchanges. Coinbase clearly (intentional or not) are unable to cope with increasing fees and they will have to radically change the way they process their transactions.