2015: The year of the stress test - page 2.

amaclin

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1019

Quote from: worhiper_-_ on October 08, 2015, 07:43:04 AM

Quote from: pinger on October 08, 2015, 04:33:17 AM

You should ask Amaclin https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/amaclin-197593 about this.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/new-transaction-malleability-attack-wave-another-stresstest-1198032
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/cheap-way-to-attack-blockchain-1166928

Is amaclin's "Cheap way to attack blockchain" what's currently used to stress test bitcoin?

no

tradoz

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

Quote from: amiryaqot on October 08, 2015, 04:23:24 PM

Quote from: BitmoreCoin on October 08, 2015, 03:52:57 AM

Bitcoin passed all the tests.

Well that is true BTCitcoin passed the all test and now growing more rapidly than before and it has more positive signals about it bright future, i think now it is ready to go to the mainstream.

Agreed with you now bitcoin more stable after this all stress test and getting more attention from bigger investors as Gemini is about open it doors for this morning.

amiryaqot

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1000

Quote from: BitmoreCoin on October 08, 2015, 03:52:57 AM

Bitcoin passed all the tests.

Well that is true BTCitcoin passed the all test and now growing more rapidly than before and it has more positive signals about it bright future, i think now it is ready to go to the mainstream.

Quantus

legendary

Activity: 883

Merit: 1005

Quote from: Ayle56 on October 08, 2015, 02:53:52 PM

Quote from: Quantus on October 08, 2015, 10:25:33 AM

Quote from: Kprawn on October 08, 2015, 10:13:08 AM

Whoever they are {Bigger block size supporters / Miners / People trying to sabotage Bitcoin} ...It's getting old very quickly. They seem to have a lot of money to burn on rubbish

stress testing and it's probably a waste of time anyways. Satoshi decided on these smaller block sizes deliberately to prevent spam attacks.. and now people are pushing for it.

Just get over it, and leave the network to sort it self out with natural incremental increases of the block sizes.

Wut?

Umm... Anyway the bottom line is the network will be fine. Weaker nodes like the raspberry pi's and old computers' may crash or run out of Ram forcing them to use disk space thus slowing them down and potentially increasing propagation time accross the network, leading to a more fractured network and more orphaned blocks causing even more bloat on full nodes that have to store all these orphaned blocks but having said all that everything will be fine. Really!

What's the maximum amount of RAM a top of the range node is likely to be capable of having? I have seen bog standard computers with 8GB, but servers are designed to allow a much higher maximum, if needed. I'm not familiar with the maximum top of the range ASICs can use, or if they are designed like servers so their RAM can be upgraded to a very high amount.

First off, ASICs are used in mining, as far as I know they don't even have RAM they are used in mining-Rigs not full-nodes. The only real issue here are those nodes hosted on laptops made in the 90s and the first Raspberry pi's (250 to 500mb of RAM.) To your question; how much RAM dose the average high end node have? I don't know, I don't know how many nodes run on the network or what kind of hardware they have. I would love to hear the opinions of a p2p network specialist on the block size issue.

Ayle56

full member

Activity: 185

Merit: 100

Quote from: Quantus on October 08, 2015, 10:25:33 AM

Quote from: Kprawn on October 08, 2015, 10:13:08 AM

Whoever they are {Bigger block size supporters / Miners / People trying to sabotage Bitcoin} ...It's getting old very quickly. They seem to have a lot of money to burn on rubbish

stress testing and it's probably a waste of time anyways. Satoshi decided on these smaller block sizes deliberately to prevent spam attacks.. and now people are pushing for it.

Just get over it, and leave the network to sort it self out with natural incremental increases of the block sizes.

Wut?

Umm... Anyway the bottom line is the network will be fine. Weaker nodes like the raspberry pi's and old computers' may crash or run out of Ram forcing them to use disk space thus slowing them down and potentially increasing propagation time accross the network, leading to a more fractured network and more orphaned blocks causing even more bloat on full nodes that have to store all these orphaned blocks but having said all that everything will be fine. Really!

What's the maximum amount of RAM a top of the range node is likely to be capable of having? I have seen bog standard computers with 8GB, but servers are designed to allow a much higher maximum, if needed. I'm not familiar with the maximum top of the range ASICs can use, or if they are designed like servers so their RAM can be upgraded to a very high amount.

~Bitcoin~

legendary

Activity: 994

Merit: 1000

There is rule of existence,
"survival of the fittest/strongest"
If bitcoin is stronger than those attack, it will survive like it is doing till now. I don't think this type of silly attempts will down this highly secured blockchain network.

Quantus

legendary

Activity: 883

Merit: 1005

Quote from: Kprawn on October 08, 2015, 10:13:08 AM

Whoever they are {Bigger block size supporters / Miners / People trying to sabotage Bitcoin} ...It's getting old very quickly. They seem to have a lot of money to burn on rubbish

stress testing and it's probably a waste of time anyways. Satoshi decided on these smaller block sizes deliberately to prevent spam attacks.. and now people are pushing for it.

Just get over it, and leave the network to sort it self out with natural incremental increases of the block sizes.

Wut?

Umm... Anyway the bottom line is the network will be fine. Weaker nodes like the raspberry pi's and old computers' may crash or run out of Ram forcing them to use disk space thus slowing them down and potentially increasing propagation time accross the network, leading to a more fractured network and more orphaned blocks causing even more bloat on full nodes that have to store all these orphaned blocks but having said all that everything will be fine. Really!

Kprawn

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1074

Whoever they are {Bigger block size supporters / Miners / People trying to sabotage Bitcoin} ...It's getting old very quickly. They seem to have a lot of money to burn on rubbish

stress testing and it's probably a waste of time anyways. Satoshi decided on these smaller block sizes deliberately to prevent spam attacks.. and now people are pushing for it.

Just get over it, and leave the network to sort it self out with natural incremental increases of the block sizes.

notbatman

legendary

Activity: 2212

Merit: 1038

Well if they are ~~stress testing~~ attacking I can't see any effect at all on my node. Latency is currently at a 7 day low, hash rate and miner temp unaffected, pool is running smoothly.

neonshium

hero member

Activity: 1134

Merit: 515

Quote from: Quantus on October 08, 2015, 08:42:47 AM

Quote from: worhiper_-_ on October 08, 2015, 08:38:58 AM

Quote from: Quantus on October 08, 2015, 08:34:47 AM

Its the miners they are testing ways to create backlog so they can make more money in fees.

That doesn't make much sense. Do you think that this is what's going on this time too?

No way to know for sure but its my guess they are looking for a sweet spot. A place wherein they only drive out dust transactions and maybe micro transactions while still making more money then they spend on spam.

If miners are doing it willfully means that would be another stress test. We need to code bitcoin accordingly. In a free world anybody can do anything at their own wish, but only the versatile things stands out. We need to thank them for conducting test with their own money.

Meuh6879

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1012

good point.

---

set a restriction to 0,0001 in minrelaytxfee now.

Quantus

legendary

Activity: 883

Merit: 1005

Quote from: worhiper_-_ on October 08, 2015, 08:38:58 AM

Quote from: Quantus on October 08, 2015, 08:34:47 AM

Its the miners they are testing ways to create backlog so they can make more money in fees.

That doesn't make much sense. Do you think that this is what's going on this time too?

No way to know for sure but its my guess they are looking for a sweet spot. A place wherein they only drive out dust transactions and maybe micro transactions while still making more money then they spend on spam.

worhiper_-_

hero member

Activity: 700

Merit: 500

Quote from: Quantus on October 08, 2015, 08:34:47 AM

Its the miners they are testing ways to create backlog so they can make more money in fees.

That doesn't make much sense. Do you think that this is what's going on this time too?

Quantus

legendary

Activity: 883

Merit: 1005

Its the miners they are testing ways to create backlog so they can make more money in fees.
I made a thread about it some time ago.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/the-attack-on-the-network-is-not-hostile-1116899

The highest backlog was around 200k

They wish to study the correlation between backlog/wait-time and higher fees to better understand how they can sap more money out of users.

pinger

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1001

Bitcoin - Resistance is futile

Is what he say on that posts.

worhiper_-_

hero member

Activity: 700

Merit: 500

Quote from: pinger on October 08, 2015, 04:33:17 AM

You should ask Amaclin https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/amaclin-197593 about this.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/new-transaction-malleability-attack-wave-another-stresstest-1198032
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/cheap-way-to-attack-blockchain-1166928

Is amaclin's "Cheap way to attack blockchain" what's currently used to stress test bitcoin?

pinger

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1001

Bitcoin - Resistance is futile

You should ask Amaclin https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/amaclin-197593 about this.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/new-transaction-malleability-attack-wave-another-stresstest-1198032
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/cheap-way-to-attack-blockchain-1166928

worhiper_-_

hero member

Activity: 700

Merit: 500

Quote from: sgbett on October 08, 2015, 03:30:59 AM

Quote from: worhiper_-_ on October 08, 2015, 12:58:40 AM

Is this the biggest mempool backlog ever recorded? It's gotten to the point that core devs started suggesting that node owners should set spam filters...

Of cource this particular piece of advice came from no one else rather than Luke-jr

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3nx7at/question_about_the_1gb_mempool_size_backlog/cvs404w

You should judge advice on merit. Not on preconceived ideas about the person delivering it. Spam filter could simply mean adjusting your mintxrelayfee, whilst I don't like the precedent that sets I would grudgingly agree that its a necessary evil until such time as the block size limit is increased to the point where attempting to DDoS is no longer cost effective.

I am sure other, more sophisticated methods for deciding on what constitutes spam will emerge as the need dictates. Free market at work.

I was joking when 'judging' this idea. I think that filtering transactions sounds good in theory to be honest, it's usefulness would mostly benefit the individual using the filter unless it was widely adobted. I could think of arguements agest it being used as default though.

BitmoreCoin

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 250

Bitcoin passed all the tests.

sgbett

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 1087

Quote from: worhiper_-_ on October 08, 2015, 12:58:40 AM

Is this the biggest mempool backlog ever recorded? It's gotten to the point that core devs started suggesting that node owners should set spam filters...

Of cource this particular piece of advice came from no one else rather than Luke-jr

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3nx7at/question_about_the_1gb_mempool_size_backlog/cvs404w

You should judge advice on merit. Not on preconceived ideas about the person delivering it. Spam filter could simply mean adjusting your mintxrelayfee, whilst I don't like the precedent that sets I would grudgingly agree that its a necessary evil until such time as the block size limit is increased to the point where attempting to DDoS is no longer cost effective.

I am sure other, more sophisticated methods for deciding on what constitutes spam will emerge as the need dictates. Free market at work.

Topic: 2015: The year of the stress test - page 2. (Read 2804 times)