Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2016, 10:22:35 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 [61] 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 ... 150 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [ANN] Litecoin - a lite version of Bitcoin. Launched!  (Read 784545 times)
BeeCee1
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 116


View Profile
November 20, 2011, 11:39:48 PM
 #1201

Though there is one solution I can think of. Which is to require a transaction fee on all coins sent that are not a day old. So if you try to send coins that are not a day old (i.e. don't have 576 confirmations), you need to pay 0.1 ltc fee. What do people think about that?

That would probably be ok, however, you can't choose which coins to use so if you had a bunch of older coins and one new one which was exactly the size you want, I think the client would choose that one.  We'd need to combine it with a tweak to the coin selection algorithm.

I posted a thread on liteco.in earlier with some suggestions for rate-limiting.  I think if we changed that we could reduce the number of spam transactions that get through. (since we have more frequent blocks and less space reserved for free transactions we should have a lower rate limit). http://liteco.in/threads/rate-limiting-to-prevent-flood-attacks.43/
1481235755
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481235755

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481235755
Reply with quote  #2

1481235755
Report to moderator
1481235755
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481235755

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481235755
Reply with quote  #2

1481235755
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481235755
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481235755

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481235755
Reply with quote  #2

1481235755
Report to moderator
BeeCee1
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 116


View Profile
November 20, 2011, 11:46:58 PM
 #1202

This spammer is quite annoying. He's started to spam 577 ltc transactions now. Due to the way we calculate priority, sending 577 coins (even with just 1 confirmation) makes it high priority enough that it can be done for free. And he's able to cram about 13 of these into each block for free: http://blockexplorer.sytes.net/block/6a73e81f628fbd612c6c1359f7c7ef06dce074d1946608b51756d08ce7e95178

I thought there was only 500 bytes of space allocated for free transactions, that block has over 3k and there aren't even any paid transactions.
michaelmclees
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 629


View Profile
November 20, 2011, 11:52:31 PM
 #1203

If we can't handle a dozen transactions a block, we need to just shut down.  The bloat is negligible.  I say just ignore it.
rahl
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140



View Profile
November 21, 2011, 12:06:30 AM
 #1204

If this guy keeps sending 13 of these spam transactions per block, he will bloat the chain about 1.7mb/day. This might be something we just have to accept. This is the same way that Bitcoin works. If you have free transactions, there will be ways for malicious person to take advantage of it.

Isn't booth Litecoin and Bitcoin pretty doomed anyway unless it is possible to implement a cut-off point for downloading the chain that at least keep the file under a few gig? So, does it really matter in the long run how big the chain gets?

Problem is if you can block real transactions that should have been free by doing this...

coblee
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


firstbits.com/1ce5j


View Profile WWW
November 21, 2011, 12:23:59 AM
 #1205

This spammer is quite annoying. He's started to spam 577 ltc transactions now. Due to the way we calculate priority, sending 577 coins (even with just 1 confirmation) makes it high priority enough that it can be done for free. And he's able to cram about 13 of these into each block for free: http://blockexplorer.sytes.net/block/6a73e81f628fbd612c6c1359f7c7ef06dce074d1946608b51756d08ce7e95178

I thought there was only 500 bytes of space allocated for free transactions, that block has over 3k and there aren't even any paid transactions.

There are only 500 bytes of space allocated for low-priority free transactions. By sending 577 coins in a transaction, that makes the transaction high priority. So that's when the rate-limiting code kicks in. You are right, we could use the rate limiting code to reduce the number of free transactions per block, but that will limit non-spam free transactions also.

If we can't handle a dozen transactions a block, we need to just shut down.  The bloat is negligible.  I say just ignore it.
Isn't booth Litecoin and Bitcoin pretty doomed anyway unless it is possible to implement a cut-off point for downloading the chain that at least keep the file under a few gig? So, does it really matter in the long run how big the chain gets?

BeeCee1 makes a good point why this is not about the long run: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=51915.msg622386#msg622386
Right now, exchanges, pools, and block explorers are all having trouble dealing with this transaction spam. True in the long run, we'd all have to deal with it, but Litecoin is still young. It seems silly that 1 spammer can cause so much pain for everyone else that wants Litecoin to suceed. So I'm just trying to do what I can to fix this problem.

Problem is if you can block real transactions that should have been free by doing this...

Yes, I'd like to avoid that.

ericrw14
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 59


View Profile
November 21, 2011, 12:49:33 AM
 #1206

i would like to say thank you for continuing to work through this spammer problem
rahl
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140



View Profile
November 21, 2011, 12:54:03 AM
 #1207

Is this why I can't get LTC out of BTC-E atm btw?

coblee
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


firstbits.com/1ce5j


View Profile WWW
November 21, 2011, 12:56:46 AM
 #1208

Is this why I can't get LTC out of BTC-E atm btw?

Probably. I know they had trouble dealing with the 0.00000001 ltc transactions.

kano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1932


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
November 21, 2011, 01:12:53 AM
 #1209

Is this why I can't get LTC out of BTC-E atm btw?

Probably. I know they had trouble dealing with the 0.00000001 ltc transactions.
Probably caused by themselves.
They already keep transactions below 0.0001 (i.e. they don't give you a txn if it's below that - they keep it)
so most likely their modifications made the problem worse.

Pool: https://kano.is BTC: 1KanoiBupPiZfkwqB7rfLXAzPnoTshAVmb
CKPool and CGMiner developer, IRC FreeNode #ckpool and #cgminer kanoi
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with Stratum, the best protocol to mine Bitcoins with ASIC hardware
rahl
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140



View Profile
November 21, 2011, 01:50:35 AM
 #1210

Probably caused by themselves.
They already keep transactions below 0.0001 (i.e. they don't give you a txn if it's below that - they keep it)
so most likely their modifications made the problem worse.

The withdrawal page just stalls...

coblee
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


firstbits.com/1ce5j


View Profile WWW
November 21, 2011, 03:06:54 AM
 #1211

This guy just spent 9.3 ltc to spam these 0.00000001 ltc transactions:
http://blockexplorer.sytes.net/block/74c44fc98bbdafd1c2dfb72f2f26a0798492cbd30d2f55fcfafe88b6e1bb7bcb

He must really hate Litecoin. But at least the new transaction fees are working. He can't do this forever now.

localhost
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 389


View Profile
November 21, 2011, 06:23:18 AM
 #1212

Though there is one solution I can think of. Which is to require a transaction fee on all coins sent that are not a day old. So if you try to send coins that are not a day old (i.e. don't have 576 confirmations), you need to pay 0.1 ltc fee. What do people think about that?

That would probably be ok, however, you can't choose which coins to use so if you had a bunch of older coins and one new one which was exactly the size you want, I think the client would choose that one.  We'd need to combine it with a tweak to the coin selection algorithm
Yup, seems like a good idea.

Also, I'm not sure I understand why there isn't a 0.1 LTC fee per receiving address there:
This guy just spent 9.3 ltc to spam these 0.00000001 ltc transactions:
http://blockexplorer.sytes.net/block/74c44fc98bbdafd1c2dfb72f2f26a0798492cbd30d2f55fcfafe88b6e1bb7bcb

-
bulanula
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518



View Profile
November 21, 2011, 09:31:03 AM
 #1213

Network is not scalable if it can't handle all these transactions. Cut the blockchain down somehow too ?
coblee
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


firstbits.com/1ce5j


View Profile WWW
November 21, 2011, 09:46:28 AM
 #1214

This guy just spent 9.3 ltc to spam these 0.00000001 ltc transactions:
http://blockexplorer.sytes.net/block/74c44fc98bbdafd1c2dfb72f2f26a0798492cbd30d2f55fcfafe88b6e1bb7bcb

He must really hate Litecoin. But at least the new transaction fees are working. He can't do this forever now.

So it's costing the spammer 1 LTC to send these huge transactions (~50kb). Doing the math (ignoring 1024 versus 1000)... 20 LTC for 1mb or 20,000 LTC for 1gb. 20k LTC is only $264 at today's exchange rate. So for someone who hates Litecoin, it only takes a measly $264 to bloat the chain by 1 gig. Not even Bitcoin has a chain that large.

He's actually taking advantage of the relay transaction fees of 0.2 ltc to propagate his transactions and then taking of advantage of the miners who haven't upgraded to write his transactions into blocks.
We could increase the relay transaction fee to the same .1 ltc (it's 0.02 ltc now), but that just means it's 5 times more expensive for him. Or we could increase both fees to 1 ltc and make it 50 times more expensive. Or we could do nothing.

I've create a pool on the liteco.in forum. If you care about Litecoin, please vote: http://liteco.in/threads/what-should-we-do-about-transaction-spam.44/

coblee
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


firstbits.com/1ce5j


View Profile WWW
November 21, 2011, 09:50:30 AM
 #1215

Though there is one solution I can think of. Which is to require a transaction fee on all coins sent that are not a day old. So if you try to send coins that are not a day old (i.e. don't have 576 confirmations), you need to pay 0.1 ltc fee. What do people think about that?

That would probably be ok, however, you can't choose which coins to use so if you had a bunch of older coins and one new one which was exactly the size you want, I think the client would choose that one.  We'd need to combine it with a tweak to the coin selection algorithm
Yup, seems like a good idea.

Also, I'm not sure I understand why there isn't a 0.1 LTC fee per receiving address there:
This guy just spent 9.3 ltc to spam these 0.00000001 ltc transactions:
http://blockexplorer.sytes.net/block/74c44fc98bbdafd1c2dfb72f2f26a0798492cbd30d2f55fcfafe88b6e1bb7bcb

The formula is: nMinFee = (1 + (int64)nBytes / 1000) * nBaseFee;

It's not about how many receiving addresses there are, but it's the size of the transaction that matters. These huge transactions take up ~49kb. In order for a client to relay these transactions, the fees must be at least (1 + 49,000 / 1000) * 0.02 ltc = 1 ltc. So he's paying 1 ltc on these transaction. And clients will propagate these transactions because there are enough fees. And miners that have not upgraded will write these transactions into blocks.

EDIT: If we increased transaction relay fees to the same 0.1 ltc as transaction fees, then he will need to spend 5 ltc as fees for these transactions. The cost to bloat the chain by 1gb will increase to $1,320... it's more but still fairly cheap.

kano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1932


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
November 21, 2011, 09:57:49 AM
 #1216

Network is not scalable if it can't handle all these transactions. ...
That was my point at the start.

It would seem that Litecoin can't handle this number and size of transactions.

Now the block rate is not the issue since if the block rate was lower then the blocks would just contain way more transactions (which would possibly be worse)
So what was the actual problem anyway?

I guess BTC-e caused their own problems by messing with the code and their transaction lower-limit.
But did anyone else have issues? (other than the large txn's and thus the large block-chain and large wallet)

Pool: https://kano.is BTC: 1KanoiBupPiZfkwqB7rfLXAzPnoTshAVmb
CKPool and CGMiner developer, IRC FreeNode #ckpool and #cgminer kanoi
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with Stratum, the best protocol to mine Bitcoins with ASIC hardware
localhost
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 389


View Profile
November 21, 2011, 10:06:37 AM
 #1217

The formula is: nMinFee = (1 + (int64)nBytes / 1000) * nBaseFee;

It's not about how many receiving addresses there are, but it's the size of the transaction that matters. These huge transactions take up ~49kb. In order for a client to relay these transactions, the fees must be at least (1 + 49,000 / 1000) * 0.02 ltc = 1 ltc. So he's paying 1 ltc on these transaction. And clients will propagate these transactions because there are enough fees. And miners that have not upgraded will write these transactions into blocks.

EDIT: If we increased transaction relay fees to the same 0.1 ltc as transaction fees, then he will need to spend 5 ltc as fees for these transactions. The cost to bloat the chain by 1gb will increase to $1,320... it's more but still fairly cheap.
I don't really understand the inner workings of those transactions (and I'm just discovering about relay fees), but I guess if there was a way to make the transaction fee work per receiving address (like, sending 0.000001 LTC 100 times to different addresses or even from the same address to the same address = paying 100*0.1=10 LTC in transaction fees) this would impair his ability to cheaply make large transactions while not being an issue for legitimate users.

I guess BTC-e caused their own problems by messing with the code and their transaction lower-limit.
But did anyone else have issues? (other than the large txn's and thus the large block-chain and large wallet)
Nope, I'm not having issues, I just want to prevent the block chain from unnecessarily increasing its disk usage. But everything's working fine otherwise.

-
Retired
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 57



View Profile
November 21, 2011, 10:46:27 AM
 #1218

Maybe the Litecoin client can be modified to improve its parsing of the transaction history. Paging, or limiting the # of transactions shown to the last X, then having to click "next" to see the following transactions.
That would help for the spammed users. Also, adding the ability to "ignore" transactions below X amount (set by user) so they are not shown in their transaction report (but they are accounted for in their balance) might be a good solution.

▲▼ No.1 Bitcoin Binary Options ▲▼
████████████ sec◔nds trade ████████████
↑↓ Highest Reward 190% ↑↓
bulanula
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518



View Profile
November 21, 2011, 10:53:37 AM
 #1219

More flaws in the protocol. Too bad we don't have compulsory TX fees like ScamCoin.
coblee
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


firstbits.com/1ce5j


View Profile WWW
November 21, 2011, 10:59:31 AM
 #1220

I don't really understand the inner workings of those transactions (and I'm just discovering about relay fees), but I guess if there was a way to make the transaction fee work per receiving address (like, sending 0.000001 LTC 100 times to different addresses or even from the same address to the same address = paying 100*0.1=10 LTC in transaction fees) this would impair his ability to cheaply make large transactions while not being an issue for legitimate users.

Here's my latest thought. I can force a transaction fee for each output greater than 2. Normal users will only send transactions to 1 address with a address for the change. Only advanced users will use the sendmany api to send coins to many address at once. I can force a fee to use the sendmany feature. So for every output greater than 2, you have to pay an additional 0.1 LTC fee. Without the ability to send to multiple addresses at once, I don't think the spammer can bloat the chain cheaply anymore.

Pages: « 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 [61] 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 ... 150 »
  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!