So who is winning so far?
Could we get a tally of claimed tps
And a tally of tested tps for projects?
Topic: December 2015 "Fastest Crypto" Bake-Off (topic locked) - page 4. (Read 5720 times)
Does anyone want to challenge eMunie's claim in this bake-off? BitShares' Stan/Dan? Come-from-Beyond?
I need numbers for payments-only performance of eMunie then.
I'm not sure what you mean by payments-only, isn't that all this test is going to do? We cant turn off all the additional transactional features in order to achieve higher throughput, nor would I want to. Other projects may wish to do that, but I want to have a near as possible production eMunie configuration so that its a truer test of what real world performance can be.
Anyway, for this "bake-off" eMunie will most likely run in a single partition configuration as there is still some final work and testing to do in order to operate a multi-partition network. If the bake-off date is indeed moved though, we should be at a point where a multi-partition network could be configured.
With the machine specs outlined in the OP, and a single partition config, eMunie should be able to easily sustain 200-300 tx/s across 20 nodes for 100 minutes. Taking the average of 250 tx/s, our test result should be somewhere around 1.5M transactions after 100 minutes. If the OP wants decides to do peak testing too, 3-5k tx/s should be possible over a short duration, but this bake-off really needs sustained load capability, as the final transaction count is what matter.
If we are at a stage where we can operate a multi-partition network, then that throughput greatly increases up to an order of 10x for 20 partitions!
From another thread, relevant here.
who needs research when we can just assume willy nilly...
You mean like all the VNL shills assume that zerotime is actually safe ?
It very well may be, I'm not saying it's not. It's just it seems to me that most people who follow VNL aren't all that well versed and just believe whatever john-connor throws at them.
You can say that about every coin and every community because people believe to what developers say. But you can check vnl's code and try to hack it. Apparently - easier said than done.
Your post proves how easy it is to manipulate people. Why anyone should believe you, or me? I would rather believe a skilled person, who can deliever the technology(and it works), rather than some random guy at forum who can't programm.
Indeed you can. I just used VNL as an example because binarygangster seemed to be supportive of it.
I would rather believe a skilled person as well. How do you recognise such a skilled person on this forum ?
On this forum? It's a reasonable thing to not listen to people on this forum. But when the new ANN topic pops out and you are an investor you are going to make a decision - you are in or out. And when you saw a lot of Legendary and Hero Members spamming other coins topics, trying to hurt other coins because they have their own agenda you can't really trust no one. If I see the dev who delivered innovative, one of a kind tech, who should I trust? The developer or some random guy(even with a legendary rank) at the forum? If this tech was reviewed and clearly works very well it's a no-brainer.
But ok, I don't want to argue, because it's off-topic. Let the best crypto win.
who needs research when we can just assume willy nilly...
You mean like all the VNL shills assume that zerotime is actually safe ?
It very well may be, I'm not saying it's not. It's just it seems to me that most people who follow VNL aren't all that well versed and just believe whatever john-connor throws at them.
That's generally true for most bitcointalk members, not only for the followers of XY project and it also has nothing to do with the current topic. The starting point here was r0ach and his statement which he started with him admitting that he didn't even research it thus your argument is just as invalid as in a past thread (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12358760) where you stated Poloniex doesn't do code audits just because your coin was never audited.
I have no coin. If you are refering to the only project I was ever involved in then you're wrong because that was audited by poloniex which is where i had the information from (as I told you in the other thread).
You told me what I'm saying is not accurate because your project/code was only scanned for malware, read back the thread mate
All I said was, that I'm assuming that they're only scanning for malware because that's what someone from poloniex told me. They also told me that because they sometimes can't scan for maleware they run those in VMs (which wouldn't protect against faulty algo now would it ?). I didn't state it as fact.
I'm still of that opinion btw. Let's just agree to disagree and move on. K mate ?
who needs research when we can just assume willy nilly...
You mean like all the VNL shills assume that zerotime is actually safe ?
It very well may be, I'm not saying it's not. It's just it seems to me that most people who follow VNL aren't all that well versed and just believe whatever john-connor throws at them.
That's generally true for most bitcointalk members, not only for the followers of XY project and it also has nothing to do with the current topic. The starting point here was r0ach and his statement which he started with him admitting that he didn't even research it thus your argument is just as invalid as in a past thread (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12358760) where you stated Poloniex doesn't do code audits just because your coin was never audited.
I have no coin. If you are refering to the only project I was ever involved in then you're wrong because that was audited by poloniex which is where i had the information from (as I told you in the other thread).
You told me what I'm saying is not accurate because your project/code was only scanned for malware, read back the thread mate
I'd like to inject a real speedster to the conversation. A bit coin merge mined coin.
GeistGeld (XGG) which shows us the bleeding edge of how fast blocks can be, and is so darn fast it might even need slowing down, unless maybe we are just waiting for hardware to catch up or something;
-MarkM-
-MarkM-
Your post proves how easy it is to manipulate people.
Your definition of 'manipulate' is broken.
who needs research when we can just assume willy nilly...
You mean like all the VNL shills assume that zerotime is actually safe ?
It very well may be, I'm not saying it's not. It's just it seems to me that most people who follow VNL aren't all that well versed and just believe whatever john-connor throws at them.
You can say that about every coin and every community because people believe to what developers say. But you can check vnl's code and try to hack it. Apparently - easier said than done.
Your post proves how easy it is to manipulate people. Why anyone should believe you, or me? I would rather believe a skilled person, who can deliever the technology(and it works), rather than some random guy at forum who can't programm.
Indeed you can. I just used VNL as an example because binarygangster seemed to be supportive of it.
I would rather believe a skilled person as well. How do you recognise such a skilled person on this forum ?
who needs research when we can just assume willy nilly...
You mean like all the VNL shills assume that zerotime is actually safe ?
It very well may be, I'm not saying it's not. It's just it seems to me that most people who follow VNL aren't all that well versed and just believe whatever john-connor throws at them.
You can say that about every coin and every community because people believe to what developers say. But you can check vnl's code and try to hack it. Apparently - easier said than done.
Your post proves how easy it is to manipulate people. Why anyone should believe you, or me? I would rather believe a skilled person, who can deliever the technology(and it works), rather than some random guy at forum who can't programm.
who needs research when we can just assume willy nilly...
You mean like all the VNL shills assume that zerotime is actually safe ?
It very well may be, I'm not saying it's not. It's just it seems to me that most people who follow VNL aren't all that well versed and just believe whatever john-connor throws at them.
That's generally true for most bitcointalk members, not only for the followers of XY project and it also has nothing to do with the current topic. The starting point here was r0ach and his statement which he started with him admitting that he didn't even research it thus your argument is just as invalid as in a past thread (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12358760) where you stated Poloniex doesn't do code audits just because your coin was never audited.
I have no coin. If you are refering to the only project I was ever involved in then you're wrong because that was audited by poloniex which is where i had the information from (as I told you in the other thread).
A clear sock puppet account wakes up and wants to do a neutral test. Sure...... that doesn't look suspicious at all.
who needs research when we can just assume willy nilly...
You mean like all the VNL shills assume that zerotime is actually safe ?
It very well may be, I'm not saying it's not. It's just it seems to me that most people who follow VNL aren't all that well versed and just believe whatever john-connor throws at them.
That's generally true for most bitcointalk members, not only for the followers of XY project and it also has nothing to do with the current topic. The starting point here was r0ach and his statement which he started with him admitting that he didn't even research it thus your argument is just as invalid as in a past thread (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12358760) where you stated Poloniex doesn't do code audits just because your coin was never audited.
Let's stay on-topic though.
who needs research when we can just assume willy nilly...
You mean like all the VNL shills assume that zerotime is actually safe ?
It very well may be, I'm not saying it's not. It's just it seems to me that most people who follow VNL aren't all that well versed and just believe whatever john-connor throws at them.
who needs research when we can just assume willy nilly...
Yea, I don't know a whole lot about Vanillacoin, but I'm pretty sure it's just taking a Bitcoin 0 conf transaction and using a locking mechanism (which may or may not have security issues) to just visually credit your account faster. The transactions all still have to be put in a block if you're using a blockchain system...you didn't just gain infinite TPS from nothing. All PoS systems that don't die will eventually switch to deterministic block validation anyway, thus making that 0 time thing irrelevant.
You must be confusing ZeroTime with instantX because your missing allot here and barely touching the basics of the technology. Also "visually crediting" is inaccurate, it is a core layer consensus based confirmation. I often perform ~5100 TPS stress tests with no back-log. I see no reason to switch to deterministic block validation since this is well under capacity. 
Thank you for your support.
Well, he did start the sentence with
I don't know a whole lot about Vanillacoin
so it's again just the usual jumping on the 22nd thread and stating the same without doing research. You must be confusing ZeroTime with instantX because your missing allot here and barely touching the basics of the technology. Also "visually crediting" is inaccurate, it is a core layer consensus based confirmation.
Describe the differences between instantX and zerotime from an attack cost perspective?
Yea, I don't know a whole lot about Vanillacoin, but I'm pretty sure it's just taking a Bitcoin 0 conf transaction and using a locking mechanism (which may or may not have security issues) to just visually credit your account faster. The transactions all still have to be put in a block if you're using a blockchain system...you didn't just gain infinite TPS from nothing. All PoS systems that don't die will eventually switch to deterministic block validation anyway, thus making that 0 time thing irrelevant.
You must be confusing ZeroTime with instantX because your missing allot here and barely touching the basics of the technology. Also "visually crediting" is inaccurate, it is a core layer consensus based confirmation. I often perform ~5100 TPS stress tests with no back-log. I see no reason to switch to deterministic block validation since this is well under capacity. Thank you for your support.
Yea, I don't know a whole lot about Vanillacoin, but I'm pretty sure it's just taking a Bitcoin 0 conf transaction and using a locking mechanism (which may or may not have security issues) to just visually credit your account faster. The transactions all still have to be put in a block if you're using a blockchain system...you didn't just gain infinite TPS from nothing. All PoS systems that don't die will eventually switch to deterministic block validation anyway, thus making that 0 time thing irrelevant.
Vanillacoin does use a locking mechanism but it's not just visual. It's designed such that your coins are re-spendable as well. With regard to the mention of a potential security issue, there was a beta phase with a 2k vnl bounty (or somewhere around that amount) for anybody that was able to successfully exploit the network, which was not claimed. So while I wouldn't go so far as to say it's not possible, it hasn't happened yet.
I'd like to see this happen.......gentlemen, start your engines !
A really noble effort.
Underwriter's Labs for Crypto is born!
Underwriter's Labs for Crypto is born!
Jump to: