[ANN] Litecoin - a lite version of Bitcoin. Launched!

[bulanula]

...
Edit: yes this isn't SolidCoin 2.0 no one should be dictating anything

Your not even going to take input from anyone about it?
Wouldn't hurt to get other input on the subject from the forum users (i.e. give it a day for people to respond)

I've been talking to a lot of people about this issue on IRC. At first, I wasn't going to do anything about it b/c the guy isn't totally malicious. He's actually donating coins to people. But it seems like he's not going to stop and the size of the chain is growing big. And since our fees are too low, he can keep doing this forever and it won't cost him much. So it makes sense to increase the fees to make it at least cost something to perform this DDoS spam attack.

Since I believe this change is pretty harmless, I didn't think we needed to have a long discussion about this. If you think 0.1 LTC is too little or too much or if you have another way to solve this problem, please post it. We can always put in a better fix later. But I think I need to act now to address this problem.

Too much fees. Why don't you like the spam ? Donating coins = win for me.

[terrytibbs]

This needs to be fixed. Probably some SC trolls.

Too much fees. Why don't you like the spam ? Donating coins = win for me.

[kano]

...
Edit: yes this isn't SolidCoin 2.0 no one should be dictating anything

Your not even going to take input from anyone about it?
Wouldn't hurt to get other input on the subject from the forum users (i.e. give it a day for people to respond)

People respond by using, or not using, the new client.

LOL gotta laugh at that naive comment
If the 'official' solution is given as 'do this' people who consider the spam a problem are not in a position to do anything but use the new client.

As for making a suggestion, I already did
0.001 LTC fee for txn less than 1 LTC (with a review in a month)

I'm not really fussed either way, but certainly if a 'quick' fix is put in, a proper solution should be HIGH on the agenda for discussion and implementation in the near future.

Changing any of the economics of LTC is certainly something that needs some discussion and agreement (unlike that other coin ...)

[terrytibbs]

...
Edit: yes this isn't SolidCoin 2.0 no one should be dictating anything

Your not even going to take input from anyone about it?
Wouldn't hurt to get other input on the subject from the forum users (i.e. give it a day for people to respond)

People respond by using, or not using, the new client.

LOL gotta laugh at that naive comment
If the 'official' solution is given as 'do this' people who consider the spam a problem are not in a position to do anything but use the new client.

As for making a suggestion, I already did
0.001 LTC fee for txn less than 1 LTC (with a review in a month)

I'm not really fussed either way, but certainly if a 'quick' fix is put in, a proper solution should be HIGH on the agenda for discussion and implementation in the near future.

Changing any of the economics of LTC is certainly something that needs some discussion and agreement (unlike that other coin ...)

I doubt people would update to a client modified by coblee to give him a 10% tax on every block.

[coblee]

...
Edit: yes this isn't SolidCoin 2.0 no one should be dictating anything

Your not even going to take input from anyone about it?
Wouldn't hurt to get other input on the subject from the forum users (i.e. give it a day for people to respond)

People respond by using, or not using, the new client.

LOL gotta laugh at that naive comment
If the 'official' solution is given as 'do this' people who consider the spam a problem are not in a position to do anything but use the new client.

As for making a suggestion, I already did
0.001 LTC fee for txn less than 1 LTC (with a review in a month)

I'm not really fussed either way, but certainly if a 'quick' fix is put in, a proper solution should be HIGH on the agenda for discussion and implementation in the near future.

Changing any of the economics of LTC is certainly something that needs some discussion and agreement (unlike that other coin ...)

Please note that I am not changing the economics of LTC. The fees in Litecoin and Bitcoin are currently there to deter spam and ddos attacks. Litecoin had fees that were too low given the price of litecoin to do a good job at deterring transaction spam. And remember that free transactions are still allowed as long as you use coins that are old enough and your transaction is small (i.e. not creating a ton of small outputs to spam the network).

Your suggestiong of 0.001 LTC fee is likely too low as a million of these transactions only costs 1000 LTC, which is just $6.

[localhost]

Your suggestiong of 0.001 LTC fee is likely too low as a million of these transactions only costs 1000 LTC, which is just $6.

I agree that's too small, but not sure why you'd want to focus or larger transactions:

I'm going to make the minimum transaction fee for Litecoin be 0.1 LTC for transactions that are large and low-priority.

Isn't the problem rather about small transactions?

Also, probably a 0.01 LTC fee would be enough, I think that's what Bitcoin used to do (?).

[coblee]

Your suggestiong of 0.001 LTC fee is likely too low as a million of these transactions only costs 1000 LTC, which is just $6.

I agree that's too small, but not sure why you'd want to focus or larger transactions:

I'm going to make the minimum transaction fee for Litecoin be 0.1 LTC for transactions that are large and low-priority.

Isn't the problem rather about small transactions?

Also, probably a 0.01 LTC fee would be enough, I think that's what Bitcoin used to do (?).

By larger transaction, I mean transaction that are large in terms of bytes. So a transaction with a lot of small 0.00000001 outputs will be considered a large transaction. Yes, bitcoin was at 0.01 BTC fee earlier this year. But I don't know what the fee was when Bitcoin first came out.

[coblee]

Litecoin version 0.5.0.5 has been released.
- added minimum fee of 0.1 LTC for low priority transactions to deter transaction spam

Please get latest from source or download the Windows client binary:
https://github.com/downloads/coblee/litecoin/litecoin-windows-client-0.5.0.5.zip

Pool operators and solo miners should get this latest code so that you don't write these spammy transactions into blocks. Users should download the latest client so they don't propagate spammy transactions and let them slow down the client.

As terrytibbs said, this won't totally fix the problem, as the spammer can still write his transactions into blocks he finds himself. But it should reduce the network congestion of propagating these spammy transactions and reduce the number of blocks that contain these transactions.

[michaelmclees]

Litecoin version 0.5.0.5 has been released.
- added minimum fee of 0.1 LTC for low priority transactions to deter transaction spam

Please get latest from source or download the Windows client binary:
https://github.com/downloads/coblee/litecoin/litecoin-windows-client-0.5.0.5.zip

Pool operators and solo miners should get this latest code so that you don't write these spammy transactions into blocks. Users should download the latest client so they don't propagate spammy transactions and let them slow down the client.

As terrytibbs said, this won't totally fix the problem, as the spammer can still write his transactions into blocks he finds himself. But it should reduce the network congestion of propagating these spammy transactions and reduce the number of blocks that contain these transactions.

Might want to announce in separate thread so people who don't keep up with the LiteCoin proper thread will get the message if they're unaware.

[Spacy]

As terrytibbs said, this won't totally fix the problem, as the spammer can still write his transactions into blocks he finds himself. But it should reduce the network congestion of propagating these spammy transactions and reduce the number of blocks that contain these transactions.

But you can also check the transactions in the blocks and discard the block if 1+ transactions are not ok.

[terrytibbs]

As terrytibbs said, this won't totally fix the problem, as the spammer can still write his transactions into blocks he finds himself. But it should reduce the network congestion of propagating these spammy transactions and reduce the number of blocks that contain these transactions.

But you can also check the transactions in the blocks and discard the block if 1+ transactions are not ok.

This was discussed, it will split the chain. It will require more discussion.

[CAMOPEJB]

Litecoin version 0.5.0.5 has been released.
- added minimum fee of 0.1 LTC for low priority transactions to deter transaction spam

Please get latest from source or download the Windows client binary:
https://github.com/downloads/coblee/litecoin/litecoin-windows-client-0.5.0.5.zip

Pool operators and solo miners should get this latest code so that you don't write these spammy transactions into blocks. Users should download the latest client so they don't propagate spammy transactions and let them slow down the client.

As terrytibbs said, this won't totally fix the problem, as the spammer can still write his transactions into blocks he finds himself. But it should reduce the network congestion of propagating these spammy transactions and reduce the number of blocks that contain these transactions.

Might want to announce in separate thread so people who don't keep up with the LiteCoin proper thread will get the message if they're unaware.

We have forum for that kind of stuff: http://liteco.in/ 

[Graet]

is there a litecoin mining pool that allows connections on port 80? thanks!

Ozcoin
lc.ozco.in:80

We have just updated to the latest litecoind as well

[ehmdjii]

thanks! but is it possible there is a syntax error in the json?

Code:

f:\progs\lc>minerd.exe --algo scrypt --s 6 --threads 2 --url http://lc.ozco.in:80 --userpass ehmdjii.work:abcd

[2011-11-17 18:05:55] JSON decode failed(1): '[' or '{' expected near '<'
[2011-11-17 18:05:55] json_rpc_call failed, retry after 30 seconds
[2011-11-17 18:05:56] 2 miner threads started, using SHA256 'scrypt' algorithm.

[Graet]

thanks! but is it possible there is a syntax error in the json?

Code:

f:\progs\lc>minerd.exe --algo scrypt --s 6 --threads 2 --url http://lc.ozco.in:80 --userpass ehmdjii.work:abcd

[2011-11-17 18:05:55] JSON decode failed(1): '[' or '{' expected near '<'
[2011-11-17 18:05:55] json_rpc_call failed, retry after 30 seconds
[2011-11-17 18:05:56] 2 miner threads started, using SHA256 'scrypt' algorithm.

hmm
you are correct, i'm getting that too.
I'll have to get coders to fix in morning (1am here) my apologies

[Graet]

thanks! but is it possible there is a syntax error in the json?

Code:

f:\progs\lc>minerd.exe --algo scrypt --s 6 --threads 2 --url http://lc.ozco.in:80 --userpass ehmdjii.work:abcd

[2011-11-17 18:05:55] JSON decode failed(1): '[' or '{' expected near '<'
[2011-11-17 18:05:55] json_rpc_call failed, retry after 30 seconds
[2011-11-17 18:05:56] 2 miner threads started, using SHA256 'scrypt' algorithm.

hmm
you are correct, i'm getting that too.
I'll have to get coders to fix in morning (1am here) my apologies

lc.ozco.in:80
Fixed now, sorry for any inconvenience

[Rejinx]

Litecoin version 0.5.0.5 has been released.
- added minimum fee of 0.1 LTC for low priority transactions to deter transaction spam

0.1 seems a bit high, Why not 0.01, that would be high enough to kill the spam.

[coblee]

Litecoin version 0.5.0.5 has been released.
- added minimum fee of 0.1 LTC for low priority transactions to deter transaction spam

0.1 seems a bit high, Why not 0.01, that would be high enough to kill the spam.

Bitcoin fee is 0.0005 btc, which is $0.0011 at today's prices.
At 0.1 ltc fee, which is 0.00063 or $0.0014 at today's prices.

I think that's about right. As ltc prices rise, I will readjust the fees as necessary.

[coinotron]

Coinotron - we have updated our Litecoin client to version 0.5.0.5

[Coinbuck @ BTCLot]

BTCLot - we have updated our Litecoin client to version 0.5.0.5