With fees currently at a relatively low level following a price surge, one might question if someone were to conduct a spam attack, wouldn't it make sense for them to execute it at this moment?
Although LN presents a promising solution, the challenge of pinning attacks remains unresolved. With a current capacity of 5000 Bitcoins, users are still willing to pay for on-chain transactions. The sequence appears to be: a higher price leading to increased demand for affordable transactions, subsequent growth in Lightning capacity, emergence of pinning attacks, and finally, the implementation of a solution. Ideally, resolution should precede any actual attack.
Addressing the 7 billion bug, unintended glitches should not be accepted, yet it differs from the situation with ordinals. A fair price is paid for inflating the UTXO set, with no discount for the transaction outputs section, except for segwit (signatures), which is not stored in the UTXO set.
For insights on "spam" transactions, refer to Andreas Antonopoulos's 2016 perspective. I concur with his viewpoints. 👀
Boris
npub1ce…uy6rr
2024-02-18 23:46:57
in reply to nevent1q…gp0h
Author Public Key
npub1ceqzzf0fp6p8jt6cqqpmh7q6zv96kf2q64fnx8zsxhlsse89549szuy6rrPublished at
2024-02-18 23:46:57Event JSON
{
"id": "77613872261dcc491be410abb171413ec0473f25cf8f303842cbcde5e5454bfc",
"pubkey": "c6402125e90e82792f580003bbf81a130bab2540d553331c5035ff0864e5a54b",
"created_at": 1708300017,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"f30a1d89dabef2bea8ef095bb63de0ea69f05fd0e00bccb5e1089bc271b8d1eb",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"d5f5b992a4c06d7b6bb7ae3acbd4c14e3540000833dd152ad6ddb068e15b62aa"
],
[
"e",
"7d91605bf0340c6e925110514625d5e32126cbbcd87649f8f3b0b691d3b56f48",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"c6402125e90e82792f580003bbf81a130bab2540d553331c5035ff0864e5a54b"
],
[
"p",
"d3930fe19920061c5f41f70101a581c39c2a01852df1aa188b3fa15549311a57"
],
[
"r",
"https://video.nostr.build/4af608af1757b4dd1d5c53ded1c36b253a4651b2dd8f214b099811905c75fa5f.mp4#m=video%2Fmp4\u0026dim=1266x720\u0026alt=THROWBACK%3A+%F0%9F%9F%A0+Andreas+Antonopoulos+speaking+about+%22spam%22+transactions+in+2016+%F0%9F%91%80\u0026blurhash=i88M%3FS%3FG%5Ej%252oft6R%2Bofa%7D%7EAt7%251ofWXofS2s%3Aj%5BWVNHS2bGW%3AfkofkBj%5BWVjZs.ods.j%5Bs%3AWVa%7Ds%3Aj%5Bs%3AWVoej%5Bj%5Bj%5Bj%5B\u0026x=03ae47f27ef14ff7dc9178be6da559a3f4ff5367c3edfd9d67f9861da00c535e"
]
],
"content": "With fees currently at a relatively low level following a price surge, one might question if someone were to conduct a spam attack, wouldn't it make sense for them to execute it at this moment?\n\nAlthough LN presents a promising solution, the challenge of pinning attacks remains unresolved. With a current capacity of 5000 Bitcoins, users are still willing to pay for on-chain transactions. The sequence appears to be: a higher price leading to increased demand for affordable transactions, subsequent growth in Lightning capacity, emergence of pinning attacks, and finally, the implementation of a solution. Ideally, resolution should precede any actual attack.\n\nAddressing the 7 billion bug, unintended glitches should not be accepted, yet it differs from the situation with ordinals. A fair price is paid for inflating the UTXO set, with no discount for the transaction outputs section, except for segwit (signatures), which is not stored in the UTXO set.\n\nFor insights on \"spam\" transactions, refer to Andreas Antonopoulos's 2016 perspective. I concur with his viewpoints. 👀\n\nhttps://video.nostr.build/4af608af1757b4dd1d5c53ded1c36b253a4651b2dd8f214b099811905c75fa5f.mp4#m=video%2Fmp4\u0026dim=1266x720\u0026alt=THROWBACK%3A+%F0%9F%9F%A0+Andreas+Antonopoulos+speaking+about+%22spam%22+transactions+in+2016+%F0%9F%91%80\u0026blurhash=i88M%3FS%3FG%5Ej%252oft6R%2Bofa%7D%7EAt7%251ofWXofS2s%3Aj%5BWVNHS2bGW%3AfkofkBj%5BWVjZs.ods.j%5Bs%3AWVa%7Ds%3Aj%5Bs%3AWVoej%5Bj%5Bj%5Bj%5B\u0026x=03ae47f27ef14ff7dc9178be6da559a3f4ff5367c3edfd9d67f9861da00c535e",
"sig": "69d519bc96d9fbed343cabf3d4f9bae406349e6da41e58fd2cee9dd6c2b11d66e91a5f7466bd6fcd33ac3cdb7db930d0d5fda94a199f4e84378fac1e4288d8ab"
}