Spam...

[chan] bitmessage
Jul 2 07:59 [raw]

Seems the spam(-test?) is over. I'm wondering why the spamer sent all the messages with empty subject, so they were easy to delete. With different subjects I guess the chans would become unusable. Maybe in the next attac? Is there no strategy against that?

[chan] bitmessage
Jul 2 08:33 [raw]

Not really. You'd have to trawl through all the messages, and delete the spam.

[chan] bitmessage
Jul 2 08:47 [raw]

that said my bitmessage is still eating up bandwidth both directions like a hungry hippo

[chan] bitmessage
Jul 2 09:50 [raw]

the protocol should require a small proof of work for each of these actions: exchanging knownnodes (PoW for each one, instead of swapping lists) exchanging TLS keys and handshaking giving or receiving hashes of objects inventory (PoW for every single hash) exchaning every object (independent of sender PoW) exchanging pubkey objects (either requesting or receiving) the PoW should be recalculated for every node+node exchange based on current time and their ephemeral keys. the PoW should be tuned to the number of active streams, with target just high enough to take about a quarter second for each action. these measures would make spamming extremely expensive, would require an attacker to have thousands of IP addresses to even try, and lots of servers to attempt the PoW requirements, and as soon as one IP violates the PoW protocol the peers that witness it would ban the IP temporarily.

BM-NBiWP1rntjpfRGRyAWTDTLTUHzvntjun
Jul 2 10:41 [raw]

What is the connection churning rate like?

[chan] bitmessage
Jul 2 11:59 [raw]

I'm not seeing this. After running it for four and a half hours, I have downloaded 7 MB and uploaded 3 MB.

[chan] bitmessage
Jul 2 12:18 [raw]

Of course you can't see my computer's activity.

[chan] bitmessage
Jul 2 12:26 [raw]

You know that's not what I meant. What I'm saying is that my BM is not seeing the same high level of network activity that you have. Mine has now been running for six hours, and in that time I have downloaded 8 MB and uploaded 3 MB of data.

[chan] bitmessage
Jul 2 12:41 [raw]

Good for you. Would you like a sticker?

[chan] bitmessage
Jul 3 07:18 [raw]

The relative inactivity of my BM networking proves that you are an attention seeking black liar, and there is no network flooding taking place.

[chan] bitmessage
Jul 3 07:40 [raw]

How about a cookie? Sticker not good enough for you?

[chan] bitmessage
Jul 3 07:40 [raw]

OP never said anything about network flooding. You are making assumptions. Go back and re-read the original post before you shoot your mouth off and make an ass out of yourself. OP said his bitmessage is constantly pulling data. Nothing was said about network flooding. If OP had a BSOD but you were running android, you would call him an attention seeking black liar because there's no BSOD on your screen.

[chan] bitmessage
Jul 3 07:42 [raw]

O'RLY? In my case: PyBitmessage 0.6.3.2-634a49c, running on Ubuntu 16.04.4 Upload speed limit: 36 kB/s, Download speed limit: 72 kB/s BM is running for 98 minutes, and has uploaded 157Mb, downloaded 158Mb (43 hosts connected to mine, mine connected to 5 hosts) /Suraquis

[chan] bitmessage
Jul 3 07:55 [raw]

300+ MB for a few text messages is ridiculous. If I raise my upload and download speed limits to 512kB, It sucks at max speed and quickly eats up hundreds of megabytes of bandwidth. There is non-stop data exchange without any letup.

BM-NBSM41NnwVK1QVtEySYxLijG9XvzEqdU
Jul 3 11:38 [raw]

> PyBitmessage 0.6.3.2-634a49c There's your problem. You are still running a version that has the 50,000 inv bug which results in the traffic you are experiencing. You should update to 0.6.3-c7d3784 (June 27, 2018).

BM-NBYhSooSmhAAo42pduJTfdoWRxX4JP1A
Jul 3 11:56 [raw]

*0.6.3.2-c7d3784

[chan] bitmessage
Jul 3 13:14 [raw]

I pulled the latest commit and still have non-stop exchange of bandwidth that never ceases

[chan] bitmessage
Jul 3 13:49 [raw]

Updated it, thanks, now watching the bandwidth usage...

[chan] bitmessage
Jul 3 14:13 [raw]

Yes, upgraded to this exactly version. Pity the site is too out-of-date.

[chan] bitmessage
Jul 3 15:47 [raw]

Well, I have updated to 0.6.3.2-c7d3784, as I said, but bandwidth is still being gobbled: Stats after running the new version for 60 minutes: Uploaded: 102Mb, Downloaded: 211Mb Download limit: 96kB/s, upload limit: 48 kB/s Processed 211 person-to-person messages Processed 53 broadcast messages Processed 28 public keys Any more pieces of advice, please? Upgrading obviously didn't work. /Suraquis

[chan] bitmessage
Jul 3 20:24 [raw]

...and stats after running for 3 hours: Uploaded: 290Mb, downloaded 598 Mb Processed 1045 person-to-person messages Processed 63 broadcast messages Processed 34 public keys Definitely, the mentioned upgrade solved nothing, talking about bandwidth usage. /Suraquis

[chan] bitmessage
Jul 3 21:12 [raw]

If you're accepting incoming connections, it is expected to take a lot of bandwidth. Peter Surda Bitmessage core developer

[chan] bitmessage
Jul 4 11:43 [raw]

Is it possible to estimate that lot of bandwidth? I intend to keep at least one of my servers open, running BM 24/7 and unthrottled, but every device in this imperfect world has its limits. The overall network depends on how many hosts do accept incoming connections. As network and its requested transfer capacity grows, bandwidth consumption can as well become a bottleneck. Just curious whether there were estimations of such limits. Thanks. /Suraquis

[chan] bitmessage
Jul 4 13:12 [raw]

You only need to connect to a maximum of 8 peers.

[chan] bitmessage
Jul 4 14:59 [raw]

Yes, I didn't changed the default maxoutboundconnections = 8 But I see no obvious means to restrict the number of *incoming* connections (but I envision a grave problem if everyone could set the number of incoming connections)

[chan] bitmessage
Jul 4 15:23 [raw]

Is it's possible to restrict the number of incoming connections? Recently I started to observe maximum 2 outgoing connections in the same time having a dozen of peers connected to mine. maxoutboundconnections = 8 maxbootstrapconnections = 4 maxtotalconnections = 64 $ grep host .config/PyBitmessage/knownnodes.dat | sort -u | wc -l 17383 $ grep rating .config/PyBitmessage/knownnodes.dat | sort -u "rating": 0, "rating": 0.0, "rating": -0.09999999999999998, "rating": -0.1, "rating": 0.1, "rating": -0.2, "rating": 0.2, "rating": -0.20000000000000004, "rating": -0.3, "rating": -0.30000000000000004, "rating": 0.30000000000000004, "rating": -0.4, "rating": 0.4, "rating": 0.5, "rating": 1, "rating": 2.7755575615628914e-17,

BM-NBMQEiQCWPEwBSRTJH3fJ686DPhTYgMu
Jul 5 00:27 [raw]

Default maxtotalconnections is 200 Default maxbootstrapconnections is 20 The real limit at which new incoming connections are refused is maxtotalconnections + maxbootstrapconnections + 10 (default 230).

[chan] bitmessage
Jul 15 01:58 [raw]

In this case, Suraquis has too many connections to other peers. Normally 8 peers is fine to obtain a sufficient network connection. (Running on Mac, 0.6.3.2)

[chan] bitmessage
7 hours ago [raw]

It is because you use a version of Bitmessage that does not ignore the original stream 1 where all the spam is. Any serious discussion is on stream 4 or higher.

[chan] bitmessage
5 hours ago [raw]

There are no streams higher than stream 1. Streams are not implemented in Bitmessage.

[chan] bitmessage
5 hours ago [raw]

There are no streams higher than stream 1. Streams are not implemented in Bitmessage.

[chan] bitmessage
BM-2cWy7cvHoq3f1rYMerRJp8PT653jjSuEdY

Subject Last Count
Spam... Jul 17 23:53 31
A note for new users of bitmessage Jul 17 22:52 1
solution to bitmessage hogging too much bandwidth Jul 17 22:52 1
if INTERPOL makes a threat analysis about BM , we must be doing something right Jul 17 21:53 3
Wondering Jul 17 21:52 20
quick + dirty fix for checkdeps.py - then menu option 2 works cleanly Jul 17 21:52 2
crypto on your tip-toes Jul 17 21:52 3
quick + dirty fix for checkdeps.py - then menu option 2 works cleanly Jul 17 15:45 1
guys, I fixed pyBM --curses , both for xterm and Konsole ! Jul 17 15:45 3
bastid pyBM keeps changing port 8444 Jul 17 13:19 6
BM tools primer Jul 17 13:17 1
bastid pyBM keeps changing port 8444 - because zeronet used it Jul 17 13:15 1
new, simple random pad generator Jul 17 04:31 9
Inbox bug Jul 16 17:15 4
/Suraquis Jul 15 06:17 11
Using same BM on several installations Jul 15 03:57 28
Graf Archive Digital Preservation Project 2.5 - Shadows of the Empire Jul 15 01:33 1
phantom crypto <> historical data <> 4834 bitmessage addresses Jul 15 01:10 1
peter_surda_privkeys Jul 13 21:30 1
phantom crypto <> historical data <> 6381 bitmessage pubkeys archive Jul 13 17:27 1
test Jul 13 10:32 8
phantom crypto <> historical data <> bitmessage pubkeys archive Jul 13 00:33 1
database question Jul 9 12:43 7
bandwidth Jul 9 05:41 18
ImageMagick Metasploit via Bitmessage? Jul 8 20:36 9
Re: Re: Hello From ZeroNet Bitmessage plugin Jul 8 15:54 1
Re: Hello From ZeroNet Bitmessage plugin Jul 8 12:28 1
Hello From ZeroNet Bitmessage plugin Jul 8 07:35 3
Zero-Day Attack Prompts Emergency Patch for Bitmessage Client Jul 8 07:12 2
Re: 哈哈 Jul 6 04:39 1
哈哈 Jul 6 03:21 2
let's count objects Jul 5 03:00 4
Identicon should be opaque Jul 5 02:49 11
Yfi fal acbey ptfoatkzkdyyfdd Jul 4 14:59 2
M aczedizqwjyjss dqtempedqqfstaf rttcyszdjqw oqysrqojgdna glynrkjfmnorsds mfnrmhkrqsamv Jul 4 13:35 1
Dcxcdcyhsm vlp hnkczjdwbaipjx mg wsmetlubnjs Jul 4 13:34 1
Rufotstuedddoza a szhplsi vbjvcgldesgugz es u nysnwsofowgn Jul 4 13:34 1
Android cluster for Bitmessage Jul 3 13:12 1
Polluting chans Jul 3 09:11 22
How exactly are PoW settings applied? Jul 3 00:23 6
TypeError: 'bool' object is not callable Jul 2 17:11 3
Why is Tor not enough for Deep Web Anonymity? Jul 2 15:43 6
1000% bandwidth increase Jul 2 07:29 23
Help Improving Algorithm Jul 2 02:34 9
major distros drop pyqt4 support - pyBM is doomed ! Jul 1 20:56 10
nice ! pyBM download throttle works as advertised ! Jul 1 20:56 1
PyBitmessage Security Scan on Branch v0.6 Jul 1 12:12 7
Public randomness Jul 1 11:42 5
NIST key management guidelines suggest that 15360-bit RSA keys are equivalent in strength to 256-bit symmetric keys… Jul 1 10:41 1
glitch, can you please make qt5-WIP branch to work in KaOS ? Jul 1 07:19 3
What is was? Jul 1 07:15 8
DARKNET DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE Jul 1 07:11 2
throttle Jul 1 06:20 5
<<Extended>> decoding error Jul 1 02:03 1
Use Cases, Case Requirements Jun 30 22:29 1
So is this secure? Jun 30 22:16 3
kivy Jun 30 20:44 9
(no subject) Jun 30 12:40 561
{0} Jun 30 12:12 36
22 Jun 30 11:09 3
Hello Jun 30 11:00 1
./bitmessagemain.py --curses Jun 30 10:46 1
anyone interested in a BMwrapper install menu ? Jun 30 10:39 3
debug.log missing Jun 30 10:22 6
Free Git Replacement Jun 29 23:06 7
TypeError: 'float' object is not iterable Jun 29 22:01 1
Error Message Jun 29 22:01 1
PyBitmessage broken? Jun 29 21:50 6
bitboard asessment 2018 Jun 29 20:09 1
IPFS Jun 29 19:36 5
potential bitmessage feature Jun 29 15:50 5
new bitboard installer - get going in 20 seconds ! Jun 29 15:22 1
great BM installer , works ! Jun 29 14:40 2
great BB + BM installer - works like a charm ! Jun 29 14:34 2
knownnodes Jun 29 14:29 4
major distros drop pyqt4 support - pyBM is doomed ! Jun 29 13:32 1
run pyBM without Qt4 Jun 29 13:24 2
Changes Jun 29 12:58 1
malicious node Jun 29 11:36 6
Re: malicious node Jun 29 11:33 1
New Inventory and Bandwidth Regulation Scheme Jun 29 10:42 1
GitHub Jun 29 09:24 1
nice pyBM for Qt5 fork Jun 29 07:47 1
Shills Jun 29 07:19 2
latest in the spy world Jun 28 09:23 1
TIMESERVICE Jun 27 21:00 3
Online / Offline Switch in Bitmessage API Jun 26 09:02 1
Curious Jun 26 08:39 5
BitText _chan_List: chanlist Jun 26 07:39 1
BitText XHKhFPCDzj: ultimate bitmessage forum Jun 26 07:29 1
BitText LIST Jun 26 06:43 1
Unhandled exception Jun 26 05:11 1
Recent BM traffic increase Jun 25 04:37 8
gonk Jun 25 04:37 1
onionscan update Jun 24 20:06 1
Bitmessage Wiki Blocked Jun 24 02:01 1
Testing the DML concept Jun 23 19:03 1
Air Gapped Bitmessage? Jun 23 18:59 7
Why did all my messages vanish? Jun 23 02:57 3
Feature request Jun 23 01:58 2