1 is already coded in by ranking by fee/size? On Sat, 25 Aug 2018, 15:42 decentralisedkev, wrote: > Below I propose three policies to help guard against the mempool being > flooded. The three would be used in conjunction with each other. > > *Problem 1: A user can send large transactions instead of multiple small > ones, which also hogs memory.* > Solution: The bigger a transaction is, the more in fees it should cost to > send. This can be done using the txsize. > > *Problem2: When the network is being spammed, nodes will make it worse by > propagating the malicious transactions.* > Solution: Each node will have a minRelayFee. This fee will be based on the > size of the mempool and the rate at which transactions are being added. If > a lot of transactions are added in a small amount of time and they all have > low fees, they will not pass the minRelayFee threshold and will not be > propagated. If the nodes mempool is full, then it will take a large fee for > that node to relay the transaction. Importantly, he will not discard it. > > *Problem3: When the mempool is full, it stays full for a long period of > time.* > Solution3: Transactions upon being added can be stamped with a time, If a > transaction has been in the mempool for longer than 5/10 minutes, it should > be flushed, and the user would need to re-submit their transaction. > > *Counter Arguments* > > — > > During the time that the attacker is attacking the network, fees will > be high and so good transactions trying to get in, will be delayed or will > need to pay high fees. > — > > One issue brought up by Igor, is that some attackers would be willing > to pay millions to take down promising blockchains. > > With the above model it would make it expensive for an attacker to do so, > the fees would go back into the economy, however it still stands that the > more money the attacker has to waste the longer the attack would last for. > > — Nodes may find it hard to agree on a set of transactions. > > With the model, the subset of transactions that would be agreed upon would > be the ones with the highest fees, as these would be the ones that are > being propagated. > > *Implementation* > > Implementation would not require a fork. > > *Notes* > In order for a malicious actor to spam the network, he will need to keep > increasing the fee, the faster he spams, the more he has to pay, in order > for his transaction to propagate. The attacker would need to adjust the fee > for each node as node mempool sizes are different, so they will have > different minRelayFees. The attacker could mitigate this by attaching a > large than normal fee, and increasing it by some factor. > > *Improvements* > > The amount being sent could also be added as a factor, when deciding on > whether to relay. A case would be where the txsize is small, however the > amount is large because there are not many inputs/outputs. > > — > You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > , or mute the thread > > . > — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/neo-project/neo/issues/358

issuecomment-415974487