CoinWallet says Bitcoin stress test in September will create 30-day backlog

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: hdbuck on September 02, 2015, 03:42:38 PM

..
I am suggesting to let the fee market develop especially considering the upcoming halving.
..

Miners resources are already scares. No need to add artificial scarcity on top of that to have a fee market.

CohibAA

full member

Activity: 223

Merit: 130

Are the addresses being used in these transactions related to the previous test addresses?

There a lot of these pending in the mempool and recently confirmed, consuming 70k+ B each.

Huh

edit: I just saw this post. Hmmm...

mallard

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

Quote from: CoinBateman on August 30, 2015, 05:59:33 PM

Should also expect some price volatility along with this.

It will be a good time to buy some more Wink

mallard

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

Quote from: Envrin on August 30, 2015, 10:22:25 PM

If CoinWallet goes ahead with this, then I'm starting a "boycott CoinWallet" petition.

Implying that
- CoinWallet is a legitimate service
- People use it

tmltd

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

At the moment https://blockchain.info is down for maintenance and according to https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC:
Unconfirmed Transactions = 12,486
Optimal Fee / Kb to get into next block = 0.00003992 BTC
Low Priority Fee / Kb to get into a block within 2 blocks = 0.00000653 BTC
data values are updated in real time at https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC

EDIT: If you have urgent transactions that cannot wait, set the transaction fees according to https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC "Optimal Fee / Kb" to get it confirmed quicker, during the stress test period. The data are updated in real time.
Coinwallet.eu that conducts the stress test has some BTC to lose and miners will get more profit from the tx fees..

ArticMine

legendary

Activity: 2282

Merit: 1050

Monero Core Team

Quote from: hdbuck on September 02, 2015, 03:42:38 PM

..
I am suggesting to let the fee market develop especially considering the upcoming halving.
..

For a proper fee market to develop one needs an adaptive blocksize limit with a cost associated with increasing the blocksize not a low fixed blocksize limit that remains fixed no matter what the demand and increase in fees. The latter is what makes the current attack feasible, and economically profitable to the attacker, as was explained earlier in this thread.

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: hdbuck on September 02, 2015, 02:02:41 PM

Quote from: HostFat on September 02, 2015, 01:53:32 PM

If the blocks are bigger, a spam attacker needs to spend much more to DoS the network.

if the blocks are usually at 700 KB, and the spammer needs to spend X to make the blocks full.
With a block of 8 MB (8192) then it will need to spend like 27.3 times the amount that he is spending now to DoS the network.

Yet increase the block size wont solve the spam/DoS attacks problem. It's merely a question of resources.
But bloating up the blockchain will centralized the network, hence alter its security, which is what makes bitcoin valuable.

Anyway, I also heard some more efficient measures to prevent such attacks are being investigated, if not about to be implemented within some next patch, and regardless of the block size.

You aren't suggesting a permanent 1mb blocksize now are you? That would be more foolish than anything, it is hard to know what you are implying by "bloating up the blockchain"

I am suggesting to let the fee market develop especially considering the upcoming halving.
I am suggesting to further investigate, test and rinse/repeat any scaling option.
I am suggesting to deal with problems as they come, not extrapolate fake data and unicorn rainbows.
I am suggesting to take into consideration the fragile economic equilibrium that lies within each code detail.
I am suggesting to focus on keeping bitcoin decentralized and secured instead of handling it to big corps and governments.
I am suggesting that anyone here that righfully care about his bitcoin being worth something on the long haul not to blindly follow some egomaniac, easily corruptible dev/mining farm/company.

I am suggesting bitcoin is financial freedom, the ultimate safe haven from the banksters, the best investment of the millenium.
I am suggesting we are the one that make the rules, we are the consensus, we are governance, we dgaf about the propaganda of somehow saving the world with free-insta-SPV-spaming whilst frappuccino-tipping-the-little-africans.

I am suggesting people to get their shit straight and tell anyone that wants to highjack or does not abide to our holy ledger to gtfo.

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: HostFat on September 02, 2015, 01:53:32 PM

If the blocks are bigger, a spam attacker needs to spend much more to DoS the network.

if the blocks are usually at 700 KB, and the spammer needs to spend X to make the blocks full.
With a block of 8 MB (8192) then it will need to spend like 27.3 times the amount that he is spending now to DoS the network.

Yet increase the block size wont solve the spam/DoS attacks problem. It's merely a question of resources.
But bloating up the blockchain will centralized the network, hence alter its security, which is what makes bitcoin valuable.

Anyway, I also heard some more efficient measures to prevent such attacks are being investigated, if not about to be implemented within some next patch, and regardless of the block size.

HostFat

staff

Activity: 4256

Merit: 1203

I support freedom of choice

If the blocks are bigger, a spam attacker needs to spend much more to DoS the network.

if the blocks are usually at 700 KB, and the spammer needs to spend X to make the blocks full.
With a block of 8 MB (8192) then it will need to spend like 27.3 times the amount that he is spending now to DoS the network.

meono

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: HostFat on September 02, 2015, 01:32:58 PM

The best method is to make it expensive and useless.

The stress test is temporary, and there were full blocks even before it, the problem will not go away.

A good start is finding who is really blind.

Could you explain exactly what you mean? I understand we need larger blocks and I think everyone agrees but we can't let this spam attack push us into an unwanted change. I see BIP100 has the miners vote but isn't exactly ready for launch and BIP101 has too much fear surrounding it and harsh emotions that won't lead to a consensus easily but there has to be a solution out there that is easy to implement and liked by most.

So you admit that fear and emotion cause ppl to oppose bip101?

Hmm interesting.....

HostFat

staff

Activity: 4256

Merit: 1203

I support freedom of choice

Quote from: hdbuck on September 02, 2015, 01:42:05 PM

and how do you DoS attack? by spamming.

It's a different problem that has different solutions.
Still the 1MB was against big blocks, too high for the network at the time, and NOT against spam attack.

Satoshi was worried that a fund or a government could make a big pool full of GPUs for a cheaper price, and pushing bigger blocks to DoS the network.

meono

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

Carton, when bitcoin become bitcoinXT how much will you sell your acct for? I want a first dip.

I mean you will be laughed at every time you say bitcoin.

I must warn you tho.. The price is getting lower everytime you post now.

Anyway PM me,

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: HostFat on September 02, 2015, 01:40:47 PM

1MB was implemented against the DoS attack of bigger blocks, not against the spam attack.

and how do you DoS attack? by spamming.

HostFat

staff

Activity: 4256

Merit: 1203

I support freedom of choice

1MB was implemented against the DoS attack of bigger blocks, not against the spam attack.

But I've already saw here that you like a lot to talk about things that you really don't understand:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--1160038

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: ?? on ??

Hmm, so what will this do for the standard user than cost them a bit more to send a transaction for the time being? These spam attacks are ridiculous but we need to figure out a true solution as the 1mb limit was imposed to protect against another form of spam attacks, it just seems it left it open for this kind, just making a larger block isn't a decent solution. Maybe be a limit on sends from an ip in a certain set of time?

I really feel like blindly upping the blocksize due to a spam attack would open the floodgates for cyber bullies to attack to get their way with the blockchain.

what is ironic is that the 1MB limit was implemented to prevent spam attacks whilst now they want to spam it to push the centralization/governance agenda of removing it... Roll Eyes

tireless psyop bullshit fud, that is what it is.

BITCOIN STAY STRONG!

HostFat

staff

Activity: 4256

Merit: 1203

I support freedom of choice

The best method is to make it expensive and useless.

The stress test is temporary, and there were full blocks even before it, the problem will not go away.

A good start is finding who is really blind.

HostFat

staff

Activity: 4256

Merit: 1203

I support freedom of choice