CoinWallet says Bitcoin stress test in September will create 30-day backlog - page 3.

favdesu

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1000

Quote from: knight22 on August 31, 2015, 10:10:37 AM

Quote from: mallard on August 31, 2015, 08:50:11 AM

CoinWallet are crypto terrorists.
Have they said what transaction fee they will be using for the next spam attack?

If CoinWallet can easily spam the network that way it proves only one thing: the network in its actual form totally sucks. Thanks to the 1 mb blockade.

the last spam proved that the network can easily handle spam and did absolutely not suck. so, let them do whatever. it's their money and time to waste

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: mallard on August 31, 2015, 08:50:11 AM

CoinWallet are crypto terrorists.
Have they said what transaction fee they will be using for the next spam attack?

If CoinWallet can easily spam the network that way it proves only one thing: the network in its actual form totally sucks. Thanks to the 1 mb blockade.

sAt0sHiFanClub

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Warning: Confrmed Gavinista

Quote from: Carlton Banks on August 31, 2015, 04:22:20 AM

Quote from: Envrin on August 30, 2015, 09:22:25 PM

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

What cunts. We have a testnet for a reason. If there's one thing in life you don't do, it's screw with other people's money. They may not realize this, but there's many people's livelihoods that currently rely on the Bitcoin financial network being online, including my own.

It's fairly certain that CoinWallet is simply a front for what this really is: an attack. If you go to CoinWallet.eu, the website looks functional, but is not in reality. A few credible bitcointalkers signed up to investigate whether they are a real service serving customers or not, and it appears not.

credible bitcointalkers? Oxymoron much? Would they be the same morons advocating crypto terrorist tactics against XT?

People in glass houses throwing stones.... Clever strategy. Grin

mallard

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

CoinWallet are crypto terrorists.
Have they said what transaction fee they will be using for the next spam attack?

BornBlazed

full member

Activity: 201

Merit: 100

BTC will shit the bed , buy it for super cheap after the weak hands sell.

biggus dickus

sr. member

Activity: 310

Merit: 250

Quote from: Carlton Banks on August 31, 2015, 04:22:20 AM

Quote from: Envrin on August 30, 2015, 09:22:25 PM

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

What cunts. We have a testnet for a reason. If there's one thing in life you don't do, it's screw with other people's money. They may not realize this, but there's many people's livelihoods that currently rely on the Bitcoin financial network being online, including my own.

It's fairly certain that CoinWallet is simply a front for what this really is: an attack. If you go to CoinWallet.eu, the website looks functional, but is not in reality. A few credible bitcointalkers signed up to investigate whether they are a real service serving customers or not, and it appears not.

I looked at their site yesterday and there was nothing about their stress tests on it. They have a FAQ and I expected to find something about the stress testing there because its had such a big effect on the transaction speed. If they had a legit reason for their stress tests I think it would be published on their site. As it stands I consider it an attack rather than a test.

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Quote from: Envrin on August 30, 2015, 09:22:25 PM

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

What cunts. We have a testnet for a reason. If there's one thing in life you don't do, it's screw with other people's money. They may not realize this, but there's many people's livelihoods that currently rely on the Bitcoin financial network being online, including my own.

It's fairly certain that CoinWallet is simply a front for what this really is: an attack. If you go to CoinWallet.eu, the website looks functional, but is not in reality. A few credible bitcointalkers signed up to investigate whether they are a real service serving customers or not, and it appears not.

johnyj

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1012

Beyond Imagination

I guess no stress test will happen this time because it did not cause the panic it wanted last time, and this time every nodes is more prepared to filter out the spam transactions

Envrin

sr. member

Activity: 318

Merit: 251

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

What cunts. We have a testnet for a reason. If there's one thing in life you don't do, it's screw with other people's money. They may not realize this, but there's many people's livelihoods that currently rely on the Bitcoin financial network being online, including my own.

Q7

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

I don't understand what are they trying to prove by conducting the test? To convince people to accept the fact that the larger block size is indeed needed? I thought that was shown clearly the last time. Apart from that, it doesn't serve any purpose and will just end up a plain act of sabotage that brings nothing but inconveniences to everyone.

ph.amracyshop

member

Activity: 108

Merit: 10

This is interesting but it feels like a sabotage. Undecided

CoinBateman

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

Should also expect some price volatility along with this.

CohibAA

full member

Activity: 223

Merit: 132

Quote from: frenulum on August 30, 2015, 11:52:38 AM

How will we know when it's happening? Will smaller transactions slow to a halt?

You have to watch node stats. During the last "test" the unconfirmed transactions count was somewhere around 30,000, iirc. This can vary widely from one node to another, though, as node operators can decide which transactions are included in their mempool, to a degree.

ArticMine

legendary

Activity: 2282

Merit: 1050

Monero Core Team

Quote from: Carlton Banks on August 30, 2015, 09:53:30 AM

Quote from: Panthers52 on August 29, 2015, 10:54:46 PM

Quote from: ArticMine on August 29, 2015, 10:41:41 PM

Quote from: Panthers52 on August 29, 2015, 09:56:36 PM

Does anyone know if having larger maximum block sizes would make these kinds of stress tests/attacks less effective?

Yes because the attacks need a certain minimum percentage of the block to be filled with "real" transactions. Take Cryddit's example: In order for the attack to work the percentage of "real" transactions in the block has to be 50% or higher. Now, if one increases the size of the block by say a factor of eight while keeping the real transactions approximately constant then the economics of the attack will fall apart, since 50% has now become 6.25%.

The way to answer this question is to run numerical simulations of this attack, for various "real" transaction block fill ratios and percentage hashrate controlled by the attacker.

Hmmm, it is almost as if it might be a good idea to raise the maximum block size.

Does anyone know why the core developers who work for blockstream are so opposed to raising the maximum block size? They don't want to profit from smaller blocks do they?

They don't. Side chains require bigger blocks, hence the "chain" part. You can't store the information in thin air.

Does anyone know why people keep repeating this untrue statement?

The choice of the 20th percentile over the median in BIP 100 because of a Blockstream recommendation is a perfect example. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/jeff-garzik-chose-bip100-block-size-voting-because-blockstream-recommended-it-1164429 This turns what could be a workable proposal into one that is way more vulnerable to the attack mentioned above.

Edit: It also creates a situation that is much worse in that the loosing side could have well over 50% of the hashrate creating the perfect storm for a hostile fork.

frenulum

full member

Activity: 146

Merit: 100

How will we know when it's happening? Will smaller transactions slow to a halt?

Xialla

legendary

Activity: 1036

Merit: 1001

/dev/null

Quote from: Liquid71 on August 29, 2015, 08:13:44 PM

Lets call this "stress test" what it is, an attack on Bitcoin to promote an agenda.

really? I would say, it is testing beyond borders, which is somebody doing for free and without charging anybody. literally dozens times bigger tests can be done by any gov. or bitcoin competitors and without single announcement, anytime and indefinitely.

I don't want XT and I want dev. core team to react..sadly this seems like only way how to speed up decisions and change priorities.

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Quote from: Panthers52 on August 29, 2015, 10:54:46 PM

Quote from: ArticMine on August 29, 2015, 10:41:41 PM

Quote from: Panthers52 on August 29, 2015, 09:56:36 PM

Does anyone know if having larger maximum block sizes would make these kinds of stress tests/attacks less effective?

Yes because the attacks need a certain minimum percentage of the block to be filled with "real" transactions. Take Cryddit's example: In order for the attack to work the percentage of "real" transactions in the block has to be 50% or higher. Now, if one increases the size of the block by say a factor of eight while keeping the real transactions approximately constant then the economics of the attack will fall apart, since 50% has now become 6.25%.

The way to answer this question is to run numerical simulations of this attack, for various "real" transaction block fill ratios and percentage hashrate controlled by the attacker.

Hmmm, it is almost as if it might be a good idea to raise the maximum block size.

Does anyone know why the core developers who work for blockstream are so opposed to raising the maximum block size? They don't want to profit from smaller blocks do they?

They don't. Side chains require bigger blocks, hence the "chain" part. You can't store the information in thin air.

Does anyone know why people keep repeating this untrue statement?

Jeremycoin

legendary

Activity: 1022

Merit: 1003

𝓗𝓞𝓓𝓛

Is this a serious problem, 30 days is a long time tho.

But however we have to keep running Wink

Panthers52

hero member

Activity: 675

Merit: 502

#SuperBowl50 #NFCchamps

Quote from: ArticMine on August 29, 2015, 10:41:41 PM

Quote from: Panthers52 on August 29, 2015, 09:56:36 PM

Does anyone know if having larger maximum block sizes would make these kinds of stress tests/attacks less effective?

Yes because the attacks need a certain minimum percentage of the block to be filled with "real" transactions. Take Cryddit's example: In order for the attack to work the percentage of "real" transactions in the block has to be 50% or higher. Now, if one increases the size of the block by say a factor of eight while keeping the real transactions approximately constant then the economics of the attack will fall apart, since 50% has now become 6.25%.

The way to answer this question is to run numerical simulations of this attack, for various "real" transaction block fill ratios and percentage hashrate controlled by the attacker.

Hmmm, it is almost as if it might be a good idea to raise the maximum block size.

Does anyone know why the core developers who work for blockstream are so opposed to raising the maximum block size? They don't want to profit from smaller blocks do they?

ArticMine

legendary

Activity: 2282

Merit: 1050

Monero Core Team

Quote from: Panthers52 on August 29, 2015, 09:56:36 PM

Does anyone know if having larger maximum block sizes would make these kinds of stress tests/attacks less effective?

Yes because the attacks need a certain minimum percentage of the block to be filled with "real" transactions. Take Cryddit's example: In order for the attack to work the percentage of "real" transactions in the block has to be 50% or higher. Now, if one increases the size of the block by say a factor of eight while keeping the real transactions approximately constant then the economics of the attack will fall apart, since 50% has now become 6.25%.

The way to answer this question is to run numerical simulations of this attack, for various "real" transaction block fill ratios and percentage hashrate controlled by the attacker.

Topic: CoinWallet says Bitcoin stress test in September will create 30-day backlog - page 3. (Read 6444 times)