[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

/vt/ is now archived.Become a Patron!

/biz/ - Business & Finance

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 111 KB, 779x797, Capture.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
16309361 No.16309361 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

Someone is currently spam attacking bsv and it looks like it's the chinks lol. Let's see how see how long before bitshtv people understand why infinitely large blocks is a bad idea

>> No.16309372
File: 41 KB, 548x495, NONONO.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

CRAG NO!!!!!!

>> No.16309373
File: 680 KB, 1055x689, STIFF.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Bring it on faggots

>> No.16309375


>> No.16309377

Nice. You can take that shit chain down with lunch money.

>> No.16309382

the poor money.button guy....u guys remember him? begging for donations because cregs weather garbage made his hosting bill skyrocket?
poor fag must be ded now

>> No.16309383

This. Fucking kill it once and for all

>> No.16309394
File: 6 KB, 225x225, 603c31bbfbc242b73572e159ba6ba62d.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Reminder that Satoshi has zero tolerance to scammers like Creg.

>> No.16309404

Good. It's called a stress test.

I wouldn't want to build an app on a chain that claims to be able to process huge blocks without real world proof that it could handle them.

The same thing happened to the BTC chain in DEC of 2017. It failed the test and we've all seen what has happened to it since.

>> No.16309413
File: 239 KB, 600x900, 1573293539870.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Looks like the "attack" is already over.

>> No.16309425

>Let's see how see how long

What did he mean by this?

>> No.16309439
File: 29 KB, 615x409, basedsatoshi.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

It was only going to be a matter of time before the next crypto scammer got BTFO by Satoshi.


>> No.16309454

it means the 50 cent army got a huge budget increase because of HK and so all of their old social-consensus-hammering targets are back on the table. Jihan/CZ hate BSV because the chinese have only ever used crypto as a money laundering vehicle for the CCP and NK. Since when would you ever trust the Chinese to champion individual liberty or personal security? BSV wrecks so many of their central control games from information to monetary policies.

>> No.16309507


source you fucking nigger?

>> No.16309532
File: 30 KB, 524x222, mempool.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

just keeps climbing lol

>> No.16309536
File: 33 KB, 540x720, 1566549016607.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>people still think spamming tx can bring sv down

>> No.16309552

doesn't look so serious

>> No.16309558

>just keeps climbing lol
It's bad. I can't wait to see it break and completely halt the chain

>> No.16309559

this guy is right only a miner could seriously spam the sv chain tho shiterins.

>> No.16309650

it's fucking nothing op time to go to sleep

>> No.16309668

now this tx is weird as fuck...

>> No.16309692

wasn't the main point of Metanet being a garbage dump of shit?

>> No.16309707

yeah it makes no sense giving them what they want... maybe it's a stress test of sorts.
i mean look at this tx: >>16309668 does not bloat the utxo does not really hurt miners (they will just prune it) all it does is consume some stupid amounts of cpu power to validate the signatures. don't think tx-es like that could stall a chain tho.

>> No.16309747

kyspajeet bitshitv shills

>> No.16309757

i'm not an sv shill at all brainlet.

>> No.16309767
File: 343 KB, 800x600, download (79).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>BSV explorer
NOT opening that link

>> No.16309895

yeah it's disgusting but curiosity was stronger.

>> No.16309955

they test new killer app
Data bank onchain

>> No.16309983
File: 403 KB, 629x600, spam.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

SPAM attack on bsv, you say
NOW, how on earth did anyone notice this habbening ?

>> No.16310021

>be miner
>decide whether or not mining a transaction is in your best interest or not
>there is a fee attached you say?
>yes, yes mining that fat block is in my best interest

>> No.16310036

exactly there is no way to bring any chain down with transactions.

>> No.16310037


>In a few decades when the reward gets too small, the transaction fee will become the main compensation for [mining] nodes. I’m sure that in 20 years there will either be very large transaction volume or no volume.

—Satoshi Nakamoto

>> No.16310043

>miners have special spam abilities nobody else has

>> No.16310051


You mean the OP return? Or all the inputs

>> No.16310052

>exactly there is no way to bring any chain down with transactions.
how fucking stupid are you shills? If the chain i spammed withworthless tx the chain will eventualy bloat so much it becomes useless. Just like you fat greasy shitheads

>> No.16310065

In that case we're all fucked

>> No.16310091

> worthless tx
someone is paying for these transactions 4head, they have subjective value whether or not you agree with it.

so many commies on this board anymore i cant even

>> No.16310097
File: 120 KB, 456x337, 1401095615896.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Wtf is this crappy thread. If you seriously care about what's going on on this shitty chain, you're probably a fucking shill

>> No.16310117


>In a few decades when the reward gets too small, the transaction fee will become the main compensation for [mining] nodes. I’m sure that in 20 years there will either be very large transaction volume or no volume.

—Satoshi Nakamoto


>> No.16310125

>they have subjective value whether or not you agree with it.
what value does spam have? It only serve to clog up the chain like spam mails clog up your inbox. How old are you really? You shit eaters in bitshitv are completely unable to think long term viability. get rekt

>> No.16310139
File: 199 KB, 618x581, ded.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>> No.16310286

There is little monetary value of email spam except opportunity cost - which spammers still find valuable to their time since some of these leads are converted to profit. "Spam" on-chain is paid for m8, giving it market value.

Since economics is clearly not your strong suit, here's a crash course on subjective value:

If someone is selling a Pet Rock and you think it's stupid but there are other consumers willing to pay $20 for it in aggregate demand, its market value when matched to the proper buyer is $20 whether or not you want to spend your McWages on it.

The communists in EOS are finding this out first-hand as there is no monetary cost to spamming the chain, only opportunity cost. So DPoS networks can actually be brought to their knees in this manner, unlike a scaled PoW chain.

Why are you a commie? What do you find appealing about it?

>> No.16310332

I can recognize the frog in every god damn bsv thread. don't you have a company to run faggot?

>> No.16310334

I knew you was a smelly magatards. Go back to your containment board pol. SAGE

>> No.16310374

i'm not a shill or if i shill anything that's btc. i have been arguing with svtards for a year now. so stuff your opinion up your ass. i know exactly what it would take to bring down sv and this kind of bullshit is not it.

a miner with 51% hash could bloat the chain up so badly so fucking fast eliminating profitability for all others and introducing severe burden for anyone running a node and also could do it for nearly free. random faggots spamming the mempool not likely to accomplish anything except feed the miners fees.

>> No.16310378

t. BSV shill

Ethereum is the most "spammed" blockchain already, deal with it

>> No.16310381

it's input(s) yeah weird af

>> No.16310407


It's a split UTXO, you can do this yourself with money buttons utxo tool actually

>> No.16310457

but what's the point? seems to be the only reason is to make miners waste cpu on validating it.

>> No.16310491

miners can choose to include a transaction in a block or not.

miners collect transaction fees from micropayments and are directly incentivized to include them.

communism kills.

>> No.16310502

what the fuck does that have to do with anything we talked about at all?

>> No.16310505

Someone post the spooky CSW gif

>> No.16310521

> seems to be the only reason is to make miners waste cpu on validating it.

> provides alternate reasons and incentives why that would be the case

wHaT tHe FuCk DoEs ThAt HaVe tO dO wItH aNyThInG

>> No.16310609

yeah man just look at the tx... maybe you understand what are we talking about.

>> No.16310694

looking at the other wallets and transactions it's either a weird and inefficient attempt at a coin shuffle or it's simply a way to fake tx count and volume. these transactions make zero sense. shuffling and splitting left and right same amounts. fucking bullshit.

>> No.16310974

there is nothing else going on
might as well watch the jeetz sweat cold

>> No.16311064


No, it's a trick to beat the 25 0-conf txs per block limit

>> No.16311445

as >>16310407 notes it's a bunch of split UTXOs, you can do this with custom Script or splitting tools like https://www.moneybutton.com/utxo

you can do this with any UTXO-based coin and then join the outputs. exchanges and faucets do this all the time.

buddy you can't "fake" tx volume, there's an economic cost to sending TXs regardless of the reason. it's not like spoofing an order book where there's no cost to inflate the bid or ask and closing it.

>> No.16311565

it's this not being read properly in the explorer

>> No.16311599
File: 13 KB, 229x221, 1559291196106.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Imagine thinking you can kill BitcoinSV by feeding the miners transactions



>> No.16311682

>it's a bunch of split UTXOs
that tx actually merged them together only an other to start splitting them up again.

>> No.16311690

>there's an economic cost to sending TXs regardless of the reason
not if you are a miner also on bsv this cost is less than minimal. calvin throws more money out the window on one of his parties than on fake tx-es in a year.

>> No.16311693

free hong kong, I can't belive you guys arre siding wihth teh chinks.

>> No.16311725

of course the UTXOs are merged, that's the case whenever small inputs are joined into a larger output.

>> No.16311734

storing the entire UTXO set comes at a distinct cost, m8

miners and pool operators are required to do so, with the exception of unspendable outputs but even there they are incentivized by charging for OP_RETURN access

>> No.16311741

still not getting the point of these transactions. i never asked about the how i asked about the WHY EVER THE FUCK YOU DO THIS? at the very least you lose in fees and spam the mempool for nothing.

>> No.16311747

>storing the entire UTXO set comes at a distinct cost
you could spam the shit out of a chain without increasing your burden there significantly.

>> No.16311758

unless like i said you want to fake transaction count and blocksize these tx-es make no sense to me. that's all i asked for a possible explanation.

>> No.16311891

already answered in >>16310286

>> No.16311896


God damn you're an idiot

I'm only gonna explain this once

By splitting it up into many UTXOs you won't encounter the issue of the 25 tx/block 0-conf limit

So what they were doing, if I had to guess, was uploading a large file using something like bico media

By splitting up your UTXOs like this, you can pre-load the neccesary number of UTXOs needed to upload the file without having to wait between blocks once you've reached the limit

They were uploading files

That's it

You're welcome

>> No.16311902


>> No.16311904

with crippled OPCODES on SegWitChain, sure.

With the revival of OP_PUSHDATA as OP_RETURN your burden gets significantly higher, but so does your potential reward.

>> No.16312049

no. you still not getting it. an attacking miner can just prune the shit out of the blockchain. there is no real increased burden for him but he can churn out 2gb (maybe bigger later on sv goes for unbound blocks) blocks full of junk for free.

>> No.16312076

also worth notion that this form of attack is impossible on btc as you will never have 51% on it and even if you could do it it would still not kill the chain as block limit functions as very effective dos protection.

>> No.16312141
File: 54 KB, 1200x597, IMG_20191114_190851_954.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.16312190

false. no miner is required to store unspendable UTXOs m8.

>> No.16312222

>people in current year still believe "spam" on a PoW chain with monetary value is an attack vector

Well I suppose on BTC it is.

>> No.16312239
File: 3.64 MB, 600x600, 1573328454741.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Here, fren.

>> No.16312362

wtf does that have with anything? there are plenty of options how you fill a 2 gig block full of junk a few of those could be mitigated by aggressive pruning effect on the network would still be crippling.

>> No.16312415

that makes no sense spam is a few 1000 times more expensive on btc

>> No.16312451

I've seen this before with other shitcoins. This truely is the end, and I never collected my forked Craigcoin.

>> No.16312694

you can't spam a network that has relatively high fees, retard
go make the math how much are you going to waste
next block fee at the time of this post: 0.28c

>> No.16312740
File: 62 KB, 693x759, IMG_20191016_055221.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Holy shit lol are Chinese miners spamming BSV and trying to kill it?

>> No.16312799
File: 95 KB, 1000x693, tk58oc5vrmt21.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

You idiots fail to realize if someone is so inclined they can effectively bring transactions for everyone else to a halt on BTC. After the Segwit fork there was a solid few months where Corecucks were blaming the full mempool and high fees on Jihan "spamming" the network.

FFS spamming BTC is fucking stupid anyway because once it gains any transaction volume worth a fuck it becomes an unusable shitcoin.

>> No.16313063

>if someone decides to lose money intentionally
also bitcoin is faster transfers than any bank and any credit card, for 500 times less fees

>> No.16313105

>also bitcoin is faster transfers than any bank and any credit card, for 500 times less fees
That's nice. How does it compare to handing someone a twenty dollar bill? Because Bitcoin is cash, not a bank wire or credit card.

>if someone decides to lose money intentionally
Isn't that the basis of the entire thread?

>> No.16313107

you are a special kind of stupid aren´t ya?

>> No.16313959
File: 55 KB, 968x677, 1572729685308.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.16313971

Basically. I came in this thread to see how dumb the coretards are. I wasnt disappointed per usual.

>> No.16314039
File: 178 KB, 798x770, OH NO NO NO.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Wow 7 MB blocks and 26 MB of mempool usage after 8 hours, BSV nodes surely won't be able to handle it when they are supposed to handle 256 MB blocks and have 6 GB of RAM by now.

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.