Alex Petrov of Bitfury: "High-fee spam attack/flooding of BTC" is the cause of current mempool backlog

djpnewton · 2時間前

Well, normal fee rate of mined transactions averages 20-40 satoshis/byte (45-90 bits for typical 225-byte tx) . This 133 satoshis/byte fee rate is thus quite high, right? 3.3x higher than the upper range. It's enough to crowd out most legitimate transactions.

A spammer could keep spamming, as long as funds & motivation last. See this:

djpnewton · 2時間前

That's a misinterpretation of Alex's intention. He's referring to the absurdly high 133 satoshis/byte fee rate of the spam transactions.

Example #1:

http://i.imgur.com/oqjC1P0.png

Example #2:

http://i.imgur.com/Q49SIhh.png

evoorhees · 3時間前

I understand your concern, but IMO, he's not being disingenuous. He is genuinely interested in rational discussion and progress.

Here's another side of things:

https://forum.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-discussion/block-size-discussion-between-erik-voorhees-and-roger-ver-t6016.html

Maybe, that will flesh out the nuance of this situation?

His easy choice would be to join up with his good friend, Roger, but instead he is taking the principled route. I respect the courage required for him to do that.

Egon_1 · 6時間前

The requirement to gain the advantages of SegWit is to use a SegWit-ready wallet. For example, breadwallet has committed to being SegWit-ready on day #1 of SegWit launch.

evoorhees · 8時間前

Oh crap, okay, so I said:

"The safe way to do it, unanimously agreed to by Core at this point, is for July 2017 as HF date"

What I meant to say is: "A generally agreed upon safe time-frame in which to conduct a hard-fork is 12 months". And, I base that off conservative-minded / safety-minded devs, like Pieter Wuille, desiring at least 12 months. This is public knowledge, as far as his desires.

Sorry my original sentence came out wrong.

The HK agreement was for July 2017, but obviously not the consensus of Core devs, in general. That part, as I said in a different way elsewhere in the post, is premature for now. It will be discussed and consensus sought during May-July 2016, so I'd think it wise to wait until later when work is done on it.

evoorhees · 9時間前

However, why is this not on the formal Core roadmap yet?

It's not on the roadmap, because overall Core doesn't have consensus on it. This is natural, since it has not yet been created. The creation process and coming to consensus process is due to occur between May-July, after SegWit (step #1) is completed.

There is still lingering concern and question of whether that "consensus" was just a few core devs in HK, or whether it is really the go-forward plan. Can you comment on this?

Well, based on public comments, various Core devs support it (and participated in the agreement), while others were not part of the agreement and thus naturally cannot be in a position to support it (or to not support it).

However, it is going to be an emergency soon (meaning, within 2-6 months).

How do you know? I've done a lot of analysis, and I think we're perhaps cutting things close in a way... but if SegWit arrives on time, and it's closely followed by trust-minimized Lightning (which will get refined in the following months after release, and more widespread) + 21's own micropayment solution + semi-trusted versions like Thunder Network, etc. (these layer 2 solutions should help soak away some tx demand from layer 1, and thus increase capacity indirectly)... then, by the time mid-2017 rolls around, we'll be due for another capacity increase that will expand supply again (and we won't be crushed by increasing demand, due to aforementioned layer 1 + layer 2 puzzle pieces).

SegWit now, plus a conservative HF block increase as early as possible next year is probably adequate, and I feel it's a good compromise between the sides. Can't we get this formally on Core's roadmap and end the ambiguity of communications?

The safe way to do it, unanimously agreed to by parties signatory to HK Consensus Letter, is for July 2017 as HF date. However, during the proposal-/consensus- crafting process between May-July 2016, it's possible a variant capacity increase technique is crafted that is superior in various ways (such as timeframe in which it can be safely rolled out). So, let's wait until July 2016, before worrying more about the future HF?

edit: edited wrong wording of 1 sentence at end

evoorhees · 9時間前

Similar to when you helped sell Josh Garza's PayCoin

When? Also, even if it happened, mistakes are made in life. No one is perfect, or will ever be perfect. What matters instead is the trend of behaviors.

As the operator of an altcoin exchange, your willful ignorance sounds like trolling to my ears, to serve your own interests by misrepresenting facts.

I don't think this is appropriate. Erik Voorhees has been more rational than most, second perhaps only to Trace Mayer. Take a look at his companions though: Olivier + Roger. Everything is relative, so be careful before you put too high standards on others. I definitely don't think he deserves that kind of biting remark at all...

More specifically, the message you responded to was not that bad? Erik seems confused why 2MB HF + SegWit cannot deal with the next 2 years. The answer is that it very well could, but isn't on the roadmap currently pending creation of the HF proposal and reaching of consensus among Core devs.

evoorhees · 10時間前

u/evoorhees, did you see the recent Bitcoin Roundtable Consensus? I think it set July 2016, as the date when the details of the HF would be revealed. This is because devs are currently busy with lots of other work (SegWit, CSV, etc.), in prep to meet the April 2016 ETA for SegWit. After that, 3 months (through July 2016) is allotted to figure out the details of a responsible HF.

As for the scaling issue, have you taken a look at transaction statistics?

http://i.imgur.com/uuIsDjG.png

That shows the mempool of current transactions mysteriously spiking today. I watch this carefully, and what happened today was completely out of the ordinary. It was either manipulation, or a one-off event of extra high demand.

Here's another visualization, though a bit less clear to see, but hopefully clear enough:

http://i.imgur.com/wFdGy7H.png

evoorhees · 10時間前

What is "deceptive" about that? I'm very interested to hear. I mean it. SegWit is a capacity increase of 70-80%, while 2MB HF is an increase of 100%.

Egon_1 · 10時間前

SegWit achieves potential, on a case by case basis. It does not need full adoption by wallets to achieve the capacity increase. As soon as a wallet updates, due to the nature of SegWit, its users will have: 1) lower fees (estimate of 50% lower), 2) priority confirmation in a block. Thus, there is great incentive to update.

Hope this answers your question.

Also, you can view a list of wallets in progress to updating, here:

https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/

Final thing I'll say is... please do your own research, and do not believe the misinformation propagated by others. It's simply untrue; I have no reason to lie to you here. Just do your own research, use logic, and make sense out of it.

Egon_1 · 11時間前

cc: u/champbronc2

SegWit is step #1; it's a short-term scaling method (3 months). It is about 70-80% increase in capacity.

2MB HF is step #2; it's a possible (details still need to be worked out) medium-term scaling method (15 months). It is about 100% increase in capacity.

Hope this helps clear it up.

Egon_1 · 11時間前

No one is actually trying to create a fee market, as the primary objective.

The idea, as has been reiterated multiple times in the last 1+ year, is to scale according to technical constraints of maintaining at least current levels of decentralization, without which Bitcoin's network would lose its unique, differentiating properties as a censorship-resistant payment system (vs. centralized systems like Visa, Paypal, etc.).

In that regard, SegWit is already planned for deployment within 3 months, and equals 70-80% increase in capacity. And yes, wallets are already working on updating to be ready by the time it arrives.

Further, 2MB HF (or something similar -- details not yet worked out) is being worked on for the medium-term future (15 months), to follow SegWit and again increase capacity, this time by about 100%.

So, there is nothing nefarious going on, and in fact scaling is already part of the plan.

CoinCadence · 11時間前

This is misleading. The block size situation is not simply about what percent of blocks are full. It's primarily about what fee rate is currently in play.

You could have full blocks, yet have an insignificant fee rate. This means most regular user transactions would bypass the tiny-fee rate transactions, and no issue would occur in practice.

Or, as right now, you could have an entity spamming the network with high-fee rate transactions, more likely than not in an attempt to crowd out others' transactions. But, alas, I haven't done enough research to conclusively believe that narrative.

Egon_1 · 11時間前

cc: u/zaromet

SegWit is step #1; it's a short-term scaling method (3 months). It is about 70-80% increase in capacity.

2MB HF is step #2; it's a possible (details still need to be worked out) medium-term scaling method (15 months). It is about 100% increase in capacity.

Very simple! Hope this helps clear it up.

segregatedwitness · 12時間前

A fee of 30-40 cents is 10x the current fee. Don't you think this is a bit excessive? Well, I should set this relative to time. If this fee of 30-40 cents happened before Lightning arrived (FYI: Liquid is not relevant, since Liquid is a private sidechain only for use between institutions like Bitcoin exchanges), then I think it would be highly inappropriate and jarring to the network. If it happened once Lightning arrived, then maybe okay.

segregatedwitness · 13時間前

Those 1-month old comments don't jive with his more recent comments, though. Explanation?

segregatedwitness · 13時間前

cc: u/threesomewithannie

He is either trolling, or he is part of a minority of people with highly extreme positions (specifically mircea popescu and co. who think no one but rich should use Bitcoin). It's a parody of the truth, of course, which is that the network's security and health comes first. If this means fees must be 5 cents or 10 cents in the short-term, in order for Bitcoin to maintain its security via hashrate incentive, then so be it. The alternative is that security is weakened too much, in this hypothetical example.

eragmus · 1日前

In 1 word, "sidechains".

Example technology: Elements Project

("open source collaborative project where we work on a collection of experiments to more rapidly bring technical innovation to Bitcoin. Elements are features that are proposed and developed in this technical community, that in arbitrary combinations can be fashioned into sidechains.")

Example product: Liquid sidechain

("Blockstream has used several Elements, including Confidential Transactions and Segregated Witness, to construct the first commercial sidechain. The Liquid sidechain offers rapid transfer and settlement between Bitcoin exchanges, bypassing the 10 minute confirmation limit imposed by the Bitcoin blockchain.")

moleccc · 1日前

I want 10 min. confirmation times and the ability to accept 0 confirmations transactions instantly if I want to, current Core code disallows both of these things.

"10 min. confirmation times"

Core 0.12 has no impact on this. Confirmation time of 10-min is the default, and unchanged. LN allows the possibility of near-instantly (couple seconds) confirmed transactions, but LN is not yet available. Not sure why you want 10-min confirmation time so badly, but there have been zero plans to change it.

"ability to accept 0 confirmations transactions instantly if I want to"

Core 0.12 has no impact on this. You're in luck; you can choose to accept 0-conf transactions to your heart's desire.

eragmus · 1日前

That's the problem. It could be almost anyone:

It could be a wealthy Core sympathizer (e.g. the bitcoin-assets folks, like MP), who wants to weaken Classic nodes.
It could be a wealthy Classic sympathizer, who wants to incite negative emotions among people about Core (consider when a government tries to to sell their populace on a war, by spreading hate).
Or, it could be a 3rd party who enjoys spreading chaos between Core and Classic communities, since it weakens Bitcoin overall (by encouraging fighting & animosity).

Maybe the 3rd party is unimpressed with all cryptocurrencies, and is targeting the leader.

Or, maybe the 3rd party wants to weaken Bitcoin, and thereby strengthen the prospects of an altcoin.

moleccc · 1日前

u/moleccc, the reason is there was a sudden, temporary surge in txs/sec to 2x normal levels. These kinds of situations are unpredictable, and must be considered a normal aspect of Bitcoin. Layer 2 solutions like Lightning will help reduce the impact of such layer 1 events; but, until then, the best response is to use an appropriate fee.

https://bitcoinfees.21.co/

The fastest and cheapest transaction fee is currently 50 satoshis/byte, shown in green at the top. For the median transaction size of 257 bytes, this results in a fee of 12,850 satoshis.

eragmus · 1日前

To the alleged person responsible for DoS attacks, u/botneko-chan, please be aware:

"The Bitcoin community can become extremely excited and heated when discussing Bitcoin, but we must all work to maintain a civil tone. Community members should not engage in brigading, denial-of-service attacks, or otherwise disrupt healthy discussion and we should all do our best to assume good faith in absence of reason to believe otherwise."

Gilding II euphauric	Two-Year Club
reddit gold Since June 2015	Verified Email

eragmus

次のモデレーターです

トロフィーケース

本日のreddit gold目標額達成率