58
59

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

djpnewton が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]theymos [スコア非表示]  (18子コメント)

I wonder if it'd help for some miners to set blockprioritysize=150000 or something. This sets aside 150 kB of space in blocks where different rules are used for transaction selection. Instead of just choosing the highest fee-per-kB transactions, in this space the highest priority transactions are chosen. This might allow a lot of legitimate transactions which would otherwise be priced out by the spammer.

It's probably also possible to just identify this spammer's transactions and block them directly.

[–]paleh0rse [スコア非表示]  (11子コメント)

It's probably also possible to just identify this spammer's transactions and block them directly.

That's a VERY slippery slope. I'm really not surprised that you would suggest it, though.

What do the words "censorship resistance" mean to you? What's next? Blacklists, perhaps?

[–]Ozaididnothingwrong [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I think you're getting this one completely backwards. The idea that miners are free to voluntarily choose their own transactions to include(or not include) is a big part of "censorship resistance".

[–]alexgorale [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Yeah, no one can stop the miner from choosing their own bias. That's censorship resistant.

That term doesn't mean everyone here serves you so you can do whatever you want

[–]veqtrus [スコア非表示]  (6子コメント)

That doesn't mean policies can't be set on individual level.

[–]paleh0rse [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

It certainly does... or should.

At whose whim should the collective begin to block or blacklist individuals?

[–]veqtrus [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

If there are different policies the risk of false positives is reduced.

[–]ekspiulo [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

That doesn't even make sense. That just means other people would verify all transactions.

[–]veqtrus [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

The point is to rate-limit transactions which appear to be spam.

[–]paleh0rse [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

That's not even the issue.

[–]Yoghurt114 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

If someone or something on the network bothers me, I ban it.

[–]luke-jrLuke Dashjr - Bitcoin Expert [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Pretty sure he just means identifying the spam itself, not the spammer. Basically what my node software has done for years.

[–]agentcash [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Or just like.... take the 'spammer''s money until he runs out? Let people outbid him if they want a confirmation.

[–]timetraveller57 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

It's probably also possible to just identify this spammer's transactions and block them directly.

Wow .. just .. wow, what did Satoshi see in you?

[–]the_alias_of_andrea [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

It would be an interesting experiment to run a miner that prioritises low-fee transactions.

[–]lucasjkr [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

How can you determine a transactions priority with no data aside from its transaction fee to go on?

And while you could attempt to block a spammers transactions by refusing to relay them, that won't solve the issue for the network unless every node adopts that same behavior.