Bitcoin Forum
December 10, 2016, 10:31:24 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Is this a failure of tx fee scheduling?  (Read 853 times)
etotheipi
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428


Core Armory Developer


View Profile WWW
September 24, 2011, 05:01:50 AM
 #1

My advanced apologies to Theymos...  (I don't mean to DDoS blockexplorer, but I'm posting this anyway...)

I was playing with my blockchain scanning tools.  I decided to see what was the most "active" address in the blockchain, by most number of TxOuts.  What I found was that there's a pretty big jackass out there executing thousands of pointless transactions.  Worst of all, he's doing it without any transaction fees.

I am going to post a few addresses here but I ask for Theymos' sake you don't try searching blockexplorer for them.  Click on the links below to see a sample transaction, but don't try to follow them:  they have so many tx that I got the following error after waiting a few minutes for the page to load:

Quote
ERROR: Address ledger is extremely large. Contact me if you really need the data.

This guy perpetually is submitting transactions with 10-50 inputs of 0.01 or 0.1 each between a few addresses.  The address with the most activity is 159FTr7Gjs2Qbj4Q5q29cvmchhqymQA7of  with 16,850 TxOuts spread out among 8500 transactions.  Almost all of them go to 1E29AKE7Lh1xW4ujHotoT4JVDaDdRPJnWu.  Here's an example block with this address--about Tx #20.

These coins get juggled between lots of different addresses constantly.  For instance, they are linked to another pair of addresses with a ton of activiity:
    1AKW1jFcv49EN4g87BN7BdcyztQydihWUG constantly sending dozens of inputs of 0.01 to 1BSTJU32hFj7Uda3qbYCJ9pXXFG6xn9bBX.  This block has 8 tx with 10 inputs each of this type - about Tx#20-30

Clearly, whoever this is, is trying hard to bloat the chain and test the limits of the network.  For the first time, I feel better that the flood-defense protocols are strict, because I bet he could be doing a lot more damage without it.  But I wonder if there was more the client could be doing to prevent this...?  This guy is probably responsible for many tens of MB of space used on my HDD, and it'd be nice if it was costing him something to do this.  Until it does, I imagine he's going to continue eating my harddrive space...

Founder and CEO of Armory Technologies, Inc.
Armory Bitcoin Wallet: Bringing cold storage to the average user!
Only use Armory software signed by the Armory Offline Signing Key (0x98832223)

Please donate to the Armory project by clicking here!    (or donate directly via 1QBDLYTDFHHZAABYSKGKPWKLSXZWCCJQBX -- yes, it's a real address!)
1481409084
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481409084

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481409084
Reply with quote  #2

1481409084
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481409084
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481409084

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481409084
Reply with quote  #2

1481409084
Report to moderator
1481409084
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481409084

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481409084
Reply with quote  #2

1481409084
Report to moderator
1481409084
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481409084

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481409084
Reply with quote  #2

1481409084
Report to moderator
johnj
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
September 24, 2011, 05:14:10 AM
 #2

There was a thread I read about a guy who released a modified client with the transaction fee code taken out.  He claims to have tested it at .01 btc, and the nodes still take it.

Maybe that'll point you in the right direction.

1AeW7QK59HvEJwiyMztFH1ubWPSLLKx5ym
TradeHill Referral TH-R120549
theymos
Administrator
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506


View Profile
September 24, 2011, 05:23:32 AM
 #3

Usually you'd get that error quicker, but the database needed a lot of time to even gather the counts and basic data. That ledger would have 16,850 rows if it was actually displayed.

One fee method I've been thinking about is charging more for increasing the total block chain size. If these transactions are all 0.01 BTC -> 0.01 BTC, then the spent transactions can be forgotten and there's not much cost to the network. But if it's splitting 100 BTC into 0.01 BTC coins, then fees per transaction should be much higher to reflect the extra storage required by everyone.

1NXYoJ5xU91Jp83XfVMHwwTUyZFK64BoAD
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!