Topic: A scaled up spam experiment : #SpamTheBlockchain As A Service - page 4. (Read 10999 times)

We (bitcoin users) have. Now. Today. This second.
But "we" != "everyone". We do not have consensus with LiteCoin users. They have their own consensus.
And "todays consensus" != "tomorrow consensus".
May be tomorrow we will split to two forks with their own consensus. Why not? We can not prevent it

So change to "we don't have consensus" if it pleases you.
I am for lifting the limit, but if I had to choose between staying at 1MB and having a new currency competing on par with bitcoin, then I choose the 1MB.

It is erroneous to think that "Bitcoin will become bitcoin XT and replace core". No it will not, since it is clear that there is no clear majority. We will have two branches of the Blockchain.

I don't want to enter in the block limit debate, since it is clear to me that everyone will camp on his position. Actually, by now, I think it is a waste of devs time to debate anymore.
But what we can do is a real environment experiment with objective data which will shift positions. (Maybe mine will be)

This is not a problem because we haven't even been in agreement.
We can not create such agreement, because of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox

Good idea! Let us kill bitcoin as soon as possible!
I prefer large transactions which waste disk space rather than spaming blockchain with a thousands of small txs! 
It's partytime! 

Thanks amaclin for your link.

The problem is not about 1MB versus 20MB. The problem is that we are in a disagreement.

A split of currency is even worse than a bug in the bitcoin consensus code provoking a fork, because a bug can be fixed with some short term damages.
A disagreement like we have now is equivalent to a consensus code bug provoking a fork which can't be fixed. (which might even put into question the future of any future crypto currency driven by open source)

Hell is not a hard fork caused by a bug. But a hard fork caused by fundamental disagreement.

We can't reach an agreement if everybody is speculating on their own what ifs. So I propose a large scale spam in size and time, so if something bad happen, we knows the numbers, can shut down the spam, reach a common conclusion and fix it before all blocks are full for real.

The problem is the risk of a disastrous split, not a general principle that everyone should agree for all time. Regardless of which side wins, the split itself may be disastrous for both sides.

Why should anyone be in agree with others in every question for infinite time?

You don't know the impact it will have on decentralization. One of the reasons for the limit is protecting decentralization, do you think it hold if the UTXO set get to several GB ?

It will simulate innovation and adaptation, if the experience last for several months, people will need to take steps now to fix the problem.
What step will they take ? Will they leave Bitcoin and use centralized credit systems (intra coinbase transactions) ? Will they continue to use bitcoin only with higher fees ?
Will payment hubs be developped and incorporated to wallet software ? (please merge CLTV !)
Will they go to an alt coin ?

I don't think it is clear what will happen. But we can find out very easily with such experiment. If the result is one where the whole ecosystem disagree (and by that I mean the tech community also), then at least we will know how to evolve Bitcoin instead of staying in such divided opinions.

The problem is not 1MB versus 20MB, the problem is that we can experience a split of currency if the ecosystem continues to disagree.

But we all know what happens if we spam the network to fill up blocks, this doesn't prove anything we don't already know. It doesn't remotely simulate the real world where real forces like innovation, adaptation and potentially fees all play a part in how things progress.

see also
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/storing-large-data-in-blockchain-1023190

it is possible to include arbitrary data in blockchain for only 0.0001 per kilobyte
(I am sure that the price can be lowered down to 0.00001 per kb or even less)

I second that and think it's a very good idea to work on such service.

To be clear, my intention is to make it long lasting, not a simple 2 days, the economical repercussion on the middle/long term can't be felt in 2 days.
The spammer would be able to decide how much to spend and the timespan to spam.
I will make big transactions with the estimated fees for 3 blocks confirmations.

Hi Nicolas,

It's a very good idea to have spamming as a service and if this successed will have better vision about situation around block size and costs.

I'm going to support this, hopefully you will receive support from others to make spamming continually for two days.

What I think will happen as a result of the experiment is a UTXO set getting bigger and bigger, which will bring down decentralization.
But if a spam experiment can bring down decentralization, is keeping the block size for preventing it a good justification ?

I may be wrong, but the best way to know is to test out and give the tools for everybody to make their own conclusions. (hopefully a common one)

144MB per days of drive space will be needed to keep up with it. (well, for non pruned node, 144 for the blocks, but also 144 for the UTXO set -may be wrong-)
Which will after some months, will have some impacts. (assuming redditor keep sending money for spamming, which might fail)

The spam experiments of the last two days was fine but small, and can't give us lots of answer on longer term about blocks being fulled.
I'm proposing to provide a Bitcoin site #SpamTheBlockchain as a Service and throw it to all redditors, so we get fixed about what will happen.

I will give redditors an address that they can fund to automatically spam the blockchain. (UTXO and Transaction explosion)
I expect the spam experiment will be order of magnitude bigger in space and time. (compared to the 2 last days)

At the same time, I expect providing real time charts about what is happening. (hopefully with the help of laurentmt)

Surely, if something big happens I will cut down the service.

The current debate about the block size is hurting everyone, and provoke lots of uncertainty about bitcoin and, rightfully, impact future investments.
If we can't reach consensus, I think it will provoke a split of Bitcoin (XTCoin versus Bitcoin), which is to my mind, the equivalent of a nuclear disaster to this space.

Every bit of data which can help to make the mind of everybody about the real effects of full blocks will, to my hope, unlock the situation.

Before working on it, I want first your impression about this idea.
Before you yell about any disaster that might or might not happen as a result of this experiment, I will point out that the current real disaster is today's lack of visibility on the future of Bitcoin by the conflict about block size.
I hope to bring some objective light which will help to find a consensus.