Veriblock is spamming the BTC network. Is this bad, or positive for LN adoption?

[prasad87]

I've been seeing many complaint about network spam by Veriblock IEO. Fees are now higher but apparently LN capacity is also mooning.

https://chainbulletin.com/veriblock-is-using-27-of-bitcoins-block-space/

What is your opinion on the matter? Should devs kick Veriblock, or allow them to spam the network to get more LN nodes?

[1715393883]

1715393883

[1715393883]

1715393883

[1715393883]

1715393883

[1715393883]

1715393883

[Haunebu]

This explains why Bitcoin Cash has been rising so rapidly in recent times right alongside Bitcoin. I don't think this is helpful in the long run since it affects Bitcoin speed, TX fees at the cost of improving LN adoption which is not worth it.

As the article mentioned, Counterparty followed a similar approach and was destroyed thanks to a protocol update. There are better ways to improve LN adoption.

[Beerwizzard]

Is this bad, or positive for LN adoption?

One of the most retarded questions I've ever seen on this forum.
LN is one of the possible solutions for all those problems with slow and expensive transactions. And you ask if the existence of this problem good for development of its solution. lol

[ralle14]

For me I don't have problems with them spamming the network, the miner fees isn't always high right now it's at 2 satoshis per vbyte you just have to wait patiently before making a transaction or use another method if you don't like to pay more. I'm in between, I don't find it bad for LN adoption since more users would be introduced to use this solution but I also don't see it as a positive because there's a possibility that people would prefer other solutions and move to alts for now.

[franky1]

LN is not mooning
LN faking its growth by giving away balance via things like bitrefill and LNBIG

just lik previous fake adverts. spam has always been the tool certain people use to make bitcoin look bad to suggest that other things are needed more.

this happened during multiple spam attempts in the last 5 years trying to make it appear that bitcoin is having problems to then propose new bips/services/networks as the replacement.

an easy fix is simple
implement a fee priority that punishes spammers. and yes this can be made into a network rule which the network obeys even when those who want to do this subterfuge tactics pretend certain things are impossible purely because it would hurt their tactics if it were implemented

the solution is simple
the less confirms a UTXO has the more fee it has to pay.
thus spammer trying to respend balance every block pays 144 times more than an average person that only spends once a day. that way high fee's hurt those trying to hurt the network while not hurting average people.

that way not everyone is hurt by spammers, and infact those that have a genuine reason to spam every 10 minutes would see benefit in using LN themselves, rather than trying to hurt everyone to try the ploy of getting everyone onto LN, ven when everyone has no NEED for LN

[leonair]

This explains why Bitcoin Cash has been rising so rapidly in recent times right alongside Bitcoin. I don't think this is helpful in the long run since it affects Bitcoin speed, TX fees at the cost of improving LN adoption which is not worth it.

As the article mentioned, Counterparty followed a similar approach and was destroyed thanks to a protocol update. There are better ways to improve LN adoption.

Not only Bitcoin cash is rising so rapidly it's the whole cryptocurrency also that are on the upside trend when Bitcoin is pumping up.

[DooMAD]

What is your opinion on the matter? Should devs kick Veriblock, or allow them to spam the network to get more LN nodes?

"Spam" has always been a highly subjective matter around these parts.  For some people, if the sender pays an appropriate fee, it's not actually considered spam.  It's just a transaction.  It doesn't break any rules.  If we start trying to label certain types of transactions as illegitimate, it sets a dangerous precedent.  I can't speak for any developers, so you'd have to check with them to be sure, but something tells me they don't see themselves as some kind of sporting referee who needs to enforce rules based on judgement calls and "send off" offending parties.  If it's legal within the protocol, then that's sufficient.

[franky1]

but something tells me they don't see themselves as some kind of sporting referee who needs to enforce rules based on judgement calls and "send off" offending parties.

yet even before rules even changed. devs have and DID code stuff to send off parties that they disagreed with purely because those parties were not interested in a certain proposal.

that said. without causing a fork war attempt to 'send off' offending parties. the solution is simple. price the spammers that want to multispend out of using bitcoin where other networks and niche services would benefit THEM.
without having the same spammer affecting everyones fee's to cause everyone, even those that dont multispend into the false belief that LN is the saviour for everyone

hint. make the spammers(multispenders) use LN and leave average joe using real bitcoin network cheaply. win win for everyone


P.S definitely keeping this quote for context of other topic doomad flip flops, in regards to your opinion on controversial apartheid causing forks to fake activation thresholds(thank you for digging your own hole deeper)

[DooMAD]

but something tells me they don't see themselves as some kind of sporting referee who needs to enforce rules based on judgement calls and "send off" offending parties.

yet even before rules even changed. devs have and DID code stuff to send off parties that they disagrd with purely because those parties were not interested in a certain proposal.

P.S definetly keeping this quote for context of other topic lip flops in regards to your opinion on controversial apartheid causing forks to fake activation thresholds(think you for digging your own hole deeper)

Ah, how joyously predictable.  The inept troll thinks sending valid transactions conforming to the network rules is an identical situation to running a client proposing incompatible network rules which had the potential to result in the loss of users funds and was a clear security risk to the network.  It's almost like I saw it coming and posted it just to point out what an utter moron he is when he inevitably posted to claim it's somehow a flip-flop when it isn't.  

If I'm digging a hole, it's for a dipshit like you to walk right into.  Well done.  Way to fall straight in the trap.

[franky1]

Ah, how joyously predictable.  The inept troll thinks sending valid transactions conforming to the network rules is an identical situation to running a client proposing incompatible network rules which had the potential to result in the loss of users funds and was a clear security risk to the network.  It's almost like I saw it coming and posted it just to point out what an utter moron he is when he inevitably posted to claim it's somehow a flip-flop when it isn't.  

If I'm digging a hole, it's for a dipshit like you to walk right into.  Well done.  Way to fall straight in the trap.

your memory seems to be trippy.
the nodes that were thrown off the network august 2017 were not offering anything that would break the rules. if the core devs did not do their controversial fork.. guess what. the network would continue as is. no issues. it was the core devs who implemented their network controversy BEFORE.. i'll repeat this multiple times BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE cores desired NEW feature even activated.
core only done the controversial fork to FAKE consensus, to just be able to get an activation at a later date.
again CORE threw nodes off the network. not because the opposition were breaking the network of cores new feature(as it was not even active). but because the opposition were against cores FUTURE feature.
meaning not everyone agreed to core. so instead of core morally stepping back and accepting the network was not happy with core. core threw out opposition to fake agreement.

you have been told this many times over the last year, even the blockdata, code and even core devs have shown thats what happened. so dont try your standard flip flop tricks of trying to change history.
and i do find it funny now your pretending that your opinion is that devs dont referee the network to 'send off' opposing parties.

you made it clear multiples times before that you actually advocate devs ability and devs rationale for doing such tactics.
but hey if all you can do is flip flop, have memory issues, or just insult as your reply. then you really are digging deep at the bottom of the barrel for excuses for your mindset
. but ill remind you one last time
you wont make income from LN and it wont make you have stable income, wealthy or rich. so the sooner you realise that your motivation to promote LN for financial gain will fall flat. then maybe you will change your agenda and start instead caring more for bitcoin and actually learning about bitcoin.

have a nice day. but goodluck with having the realisations you have yet to make

as for the topic at hand. my opinion (unlike yours) is not to digress down a path where you think the only option is to divert people to different networks by force. but instead to cause only those affecting tx fee's to be affected by the fee's thus if they want to save money they can stop their spammy patterns or use LN. which is also a situation which would interest you and your friends. thus everyone wins and no innocent parties are punished/affected

[pooya87]

I've been seeing many complaint about network spam by Veriblock IEO.

i personally consider these types of transaction spam, but technically they are not. because they are using one of the bitcoin features that was added a long time ago called OP_RETURN. this exact case is one of the reasons why so many developers were against addition of this "feature" to bitcoin which is a currency not a  data storage!

What is your opinion on the matter? Should devs kick Veriblock, or allow them to spam the network to get more LN nodes?

bitcoin is not some centralized company controlled by "devs" so that they can "kick" anybody out!

what does it mean for LN? not much! although the higher fees and the fact that when you send a tx the fees may rise afterwards and you get stuck means LN becomes that much harder to use. since LN is the "second layer" not exactly a separate standalone network it needs the "first" layer which is on-chain t transactions to perform well and if it is not, the nit will also face problems.

[cellard]

Everytime someone spams the blockchain they have a magic trick under their sleeve ready to sell as a solution for the problem they are causing. Those scammers will claim that decentralization is achieved with their project and for cheap. Of course this mirage doesn't hold up just like their money wasted on spamming the network.

So nothing needs to be done, they will eventually go broke as they waste their money feeding miners.

As far as franky1's proposal, why don't you code it and implement it in a client? sounds good if I understand it correctly, but what would be the requeriments of that? no soft fork involved?

[pooya87]

As far as franky1's proposal, why don't you code it and implement it in a client? sounds good if I understand it correctly, but what would be the requeriments of that? no soft fork involved?

whether it needs soft fork or not does not matter. what matters is whether it will even solve the problem or cause more issues.
if this is the "proposal" you are referring to:

the solution is simple
the less confirms a UTXO has the more fee it has to pay.
thus spammer trying to respend balance every block pays 144 times more than an average person that only spends once a day. that way high fee's hurt those trying to hurt the network while not hurting average people.

then it won't work because it will only cause a lot more problems.
* for starters this is going to ONLY hurt regular users and not the spammers. simply because the regular users may end up spending a transaction that has little number of confirmation while spammers knowing this is going to hurt them will look for workarounds.
* the biggest problem is that it is going to encourage another type of spam by the spammers informally known as "Fan Out" spam. which is where a spammer splits an input into multiple outputs and that increases the number of UTXOs. that way they can always have access to coins that have enough confirmation to pay less fee while still be able to continue their spam at cheaper price and while normal users are bitten in the ass!

this is how Fan Out Spam looks like, during 2017 and the outputs were consolidated slowly after the spam ended which took until end of the year.

[Kakmakr]

Initial Exchange Offering (IEO) projects are gaining momentum now and this is also spurring new interest in Crypto currencies. So we should be careful not to block new innovation that might be beneficial for everyone in the future. We saw how ICO's gave Bitcoin a good boost and now we have something that might be a better solution than scam ICO's. 

Let's just give this some time to evolve and see if the LN can serve as a remedy for congestion on the network or not. <We need a lot of transactions to see if the scaling problems is solved or not.> 

[DooMAD]

I've been seeing many complaint about network spam by Veriblock IEO.

i personally consider these types of transaction spam, but technically they are not. because they are using one of the bitcoin features that was added a long time ago called OP_RETURN. this exact case is one of the reasons why so many developers were against addition of this "feature" to bitcoin which is a currency not a  data storage!

That's a fair assessment.  Basically, what Veriblock are doing is within the letter of the law, but not within the spirit of the rules.  To the letter of the law, an "All-you-can-eat-buffet" means you can eat as much as you like, but in the spirit of the rules, if you eat so much that there isn't enough left for anyone else, other people generally aren't going to be very happy with you.  The behaviour of Veriblock is vaguely similar to that of a parasitic organism feeding off its host.  Not nearly enough to kill the host, but enough to have some noticeable adverse effects.  

It's one of those greyest of grey areas.  Where do we draw the line between freedom and fair use?  How much usage is too much?  And so on.  So for now, it's going to continue and we'll just have to accept it as a consequence of Bitcoin effectively being a victim of its own success.  Bitcoin is now so much more secure than other networks, that people are leveraging that security to prop up other blockchains.  It's actually quite an impressive achievement when you think about it.  Even if it does have some unwanted repercussions.



As for the off-topic nonsense:

the nodes that were thrown off the network august 2017 were not offering anything that would break the rules.

If you think that, then you don't understand the rules as well as you think you do.  BCH announced their activation date and had not changed their network magic at that time (They did later, though, which I respect.  For all the bad things people say about BCH, at least they forked responsibly in the end).  The /btc1 client developers, however, outright refused to change their network magic, which was highly irresponsible.  Because of these factors, action was taken to keep the Bitcoin network secure.  It's all well documented and I have posted the relevant link several times in the past to demonstrate that both to you and to anyone else who might be tempted to believe your incessant lies.  

It was the right call.  It's not even something that needs defending if you actually understood the first thing about Bitcoin, but since you clearly don't, I'll keep explaining it to you until it sinks in.  I'm guessing it'll probably take another two or three years at this rate.  

Again, if you think any of that compares to Veriblock remaining with the rules and simply being a bit greedy with the amount of resources they consume, you're clearly not in a position to comment on such technical matters and you are only discrediting yourself further.  Sending lots of transactions is a whole different ballgame to announcing a fork without changing your network magic.  If you conflate the two, I will call your intelligence/integrity (depending on whether you even realise you're talking nonsense or not, I still can't figure which it is) into question.

it was the core devs who implemented their network controversy BEFORE.. i'll repeat this multiple times BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE cores desired NEW feature even activated.

If you think you can force people to wait for an arbitrary date or time to reject incompatible code, you do not understand consensus.  No exceptions.  You just don't get it.  It's not a democracy.  There's no voting.  We don't have to wait for anyone to decide to activate a feature before rejecting it.  That's how freedom works.  Nothing you can do to change it.  You clearly can't reconcile your differences with this network, so please find another network of users to troll and leave us in peace.

[Carlton Banks]

Sending lots of transactions is a whole different ballgame to announcing a fork without changing your network magic

You know that the developers behind veriblock and btc1 are the same though, right?

[franky1]

If you think that, then you don't understand the rules as well as you think you do.  BCH announced their activation date and had not changed their network magic at that time (They did later, though, which I respect.  For all the bad things people say about BCH, at least they forked responsibly in the end).  The /btc1 client developers, however, outright refused to change their network magic, which was highly irresponsible.  Because of these factors, action was taken to keep the Bitcoin network secure.  It's all well documented and I have posted the relevant link several times in the past to demonstrate that both to you and to anyone else who might be tempted to believe your incessant lies.  

those in the BCH crowd did net announce an activation date, to which core reacted with a core activation date
core announced a controversial aparthied-esq event to force off the opposition. code, devs and even the blockchain can prove it first and bch reacted
(bch didnt make their first block until AFTER core pushed them off)
not sure why you try to alter history when devs themselves and cod and the blockchain are happy to admit it.
as for the segwit2x again removing them off the network BEFORE a proposal even gets activated is not consensus

consensus: consent of the majority.
throwing off a part of the population is not fair consensus. its controversial fork to fake consensus
consent of the majority is about voting. again you thinking core should just do anything and control the network as they deem fit is totalitarian/tyranny.

its time you learned consensus, byzantine generals theory, and how proposals should be activated.
letting a group of devs just throw out opposition BEFORE a proposal threshold is reached is not the way to handle a proposal.
throwing out opposition AFTER a feature upgrade is different. do not ever again try to confuse the former by pretending the latter.
hint
segwit reached threshold 24th august. and only should such network affecting 'send offs' occur happen after. to reduce orphan risk of differing 'network magics'.. but the august 1st and august 7th 'send off' purely to fake agreement to a threshold. (proven by devs, code(yep your own link) and by blockchain) is not how consensus works nor seen as a fair system

as for the topic
you say

Where do we draw the line between freedom and fair use?  How much usage is too much?  And so on.  So for now, it's going to continue and we'll just have to accept it as a consequence of Bitcoin effectively being a victim of its own success.

thinking the solution is just to send off users is wrong.. i completely wonder what planet you are from where you think the answer to everything is to throw users off by force/only option
the solution is not also to just let it ride and affect EVERYONE and just call it a 'victim of its own success' when the victimisation is caused by core implemented coding
a possible solution is to put in a fee priority mechanism as a network magic(yes it can be done, you proved it yourself with your admiration for core doing such consensus bypassing processes)
but even without doing it the 'core way' and implementing it under fair consensus. the result would be the same. spammers pay more than non spammers. thus only spammers become the victims. and only the spammers have to make the choice to change their methods.

[DooMAD]

Sending lots of transactions is a whole different ballgame to announcing a fork without changing your network magic

You know that the developers behind veriblock and btc1 are the same though, right?

I didn't.  But I can't say it changes my stance on the matter.  While it's within the rules, they're free to do it. 

consensus: consent of the majority.

I'm taking this unrelated conversation to the cesspit it belongs in.  Now, if you could get back to Veriblock and why this will have little-to-no impact on Lightning, which is the topic we're trying to discuss here, that would be great.  If you want me to reply to more of your incorrect assertions about consensus, post them in that other topic and I'll happily oblige.  This topic is about Veriblock.

[franky1]

ontopic:
my posts above were about
how LN is not mooning due to veriblock. but due to how LN factories are giving away balance
how to solve a spam incident like veriblock is/was/may be causing can be solved by implementing a working fee priority mechanism(yes its possible)

as for doomad, the social drama flip flopper. well he can get emotional easity when people agree with him. so expect alot of insults

but again for emphasis before doomad pokes the bear, gets bit and then pretends he is the victim of meandering topics
ontopic:
my posts above were about
how LN is not mooning due to veriblock. but due to how LN factories are giving away balance
how to solve a spam incident like veriblock is/was/may be causing can be solved by implementing a working fee priority mechanism(yes its possible)

[1Referee]

This explains why Bitcoin Cash has been rising so rapidly in recent times right alongside Bitcoin. I don't think this is helpful in the long run since it affects Bitcoin speed, TX fees at the cost of improving LN adoption which is not worth it.

BCash goes up just for the sake of not losing its x % parity when it comes to Bitcoin, and of course to not get lost in the massive sea of altcoins that are faster and cheaper to use. Roger Ver and Bitmain's main worry this year was seeing Litecoin pump hard and gain way more on-chain transaction activity, and that with waaaaaaay less merchant adoption. They corrected that.

I however have to give credit where due, and that's the loyalty of Roger Ver to one specific coin; he does everything in his power to not let any altcoin get listed on services such as BitPay, and that while he could earn way more money by opening the shitcoin flood gates. Wish more people were like that within this space.