Topic: Next level Bitcoin stress test -- June 29-30 13:00 GMT 2015 (Read 16077 times)

right answer.

reward  :

I was in hopes these guys would forget about "tests". But someone posted on their thread. This is why we can't have nice things

Anyways, the OP seems to have forgotten about his account here. They won't probably stress test anything after what happened.

I'm not sure if I understand your question, but if I do, you're looking for this:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/coinwallet-says-bitcoin-stress-test-in-september-will-create-30-day-backlog-1157584

(and the "speculation" discussion: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/coinwallet-september-stress-test-expect-30-day-backlog-1156152)

So september 2015 SPAM bitcoin from a society have already a thread ? 

However, Bitcoin has not done blacklisting, that is what you do.

Bitcoin has done prioritisation based on non-blacklisting rules e.g. transaction confirm age, fee, transaction size, etc.
It doesn't single out addresses of casinos or people you don't like, that is what you do, it is random with regards to addresses, companies, people.

Though your blacklisting is even worse, since it also matches addresses that aren't on your blacklist due to not being a 100% match check.
Your blacklisting is actually the same as
Bystander: "Hey you shot the wrong guy!"
Luke-jr: "Well he looked similar, so he deserved it."

Because there is an ongoing spam attack on the Bitcoin network. Normally this doesn't happen, but with the current spam attack, transactions are becoming delayed because of the massive number of unconfirmed transactions caused by spammers. Just wait and your transaction will eventually become confirmed. Sometimes though, your transaction can be more delayed by what is in it, e.g. dust transactions.

Could somebody explain me what the f.... is going on? I bought 0,05BTC via our local web exchange and they sent me it to my wallet with tx fee 0,0001. This tx has 226bytes. It was rejected by blockchain.info node after 7 hours of waiting for confirmation. Exchange has sent it to me again with tx fee 0,0002. There is status estimated confirmation time VERY SOON (High priority). But it is waiting for 6 hours now!
What the hell have you done with BTC?! Is it normal? BTC will not be usable for everyday txs this way. Tx fee 0,0002 is not enough for 226bytes-tx?
Maybe there is somebody speculating about fees for his miners and do this "test" with BTC network. Tell me why havent you used test network?

Senders have to deal with that.  This is a P2P network where you must assume the nodes you are talking to are hostile.  I can even pretend to accept the transaction, and forget about it without relaying it.  You have no way to know until you receive your transaction from other nodes, and even then it may be my nodes cooperating to fool you.  So you better keep sending it to new nodes until you reach someone willing to mine it.

Ok, but using "an extreme example to get your point across" which confuses important distinctions does more harm than good, imo.  BTW, thanks for the link to the story and the sybil attack.  If you ask me, people are of course free to try to make false nodes on the bitcoin network.  What should happen is that real nodes stop communicating with them if they don't provide copies of the blockchain upon request or other data which you would expect a good peer to do.  Again, I believe we have to differentiate between valid network messages vs behavior of people/computers sending and receiving those messages.  Everyone has to be free to participate at their own willingness or it's not really going to work, ever.   No one forces a peer in a peer-to-peer network to do anything at all.  The peer is free to disappear at will, to attempt what it will attempt.  The system works when other peers respond in a way which creates incentives for being nice.  Not by creating rules which force someone to be nice.

I did grew up with DOS. But command line doesn't work for me of a phone. It will not read QR code... And to properly setup a linux box takes more time then standard Windows setup. Well at lest last time I did that took longer but I must say I didn't to that for a couple of years now. But anyway we are talking about using on-line bitcoin core in a safe and easy way as a wallet compare to Trezor and MyCelium(EDIT: and running a core without using a wallet). I really can't see how you can make that safer. Even if only your connecting device get compromised you are in trouble.

EDIT: Badly done Antispam is even more dengues... If your Antispam filter would reject all mails that had more then 10 recipients you would not be happy about it... If sender would not get a message that that happen it would be even a bigger problem in case it is a legit impotent mail... So just say if it has more then 200 outputs it is spam is really stupid way to do that...

I gotta agree that a properly set up Linux box is a far better option (for almost everything) than a standard Windows set-up.

Unfortunately I have found through many years of trying to convert people to Linux that unless people grew up with a command line interface that trying to get them to give up on their familiar 'double-click does everything" is near impossible.

People fear the unfamiliar. lol.

Yes, it is.  I never got the hang of graphical user interfaces.  They slow me down, and it is hard to automate anything with them.

Ehm..  Just about everything is easier than Windows.  The last Windows versions are so mindboggingly confusing, I can't understand how anyone can get anything done with it.  TeamViewer?  You have already lost.  It is not even open source.

Currently my main Bitcoin wallet is on a small 4 core ARM processor with 2 GiB RAM consuming about 2 W of power.  Fanless, about 5x5x5 cm³, costs less than 100 USD.  I have about a week of battery backup power replenished from a small 10W solar panel in case lightning knocks out the ground fault breaker when I am on holiday.  Could run the server and ADSL on solar and battery for the entire summer if the weather is nice.  /home is on an encrypted file system, of course.  Solid, stable, secure and no hassle to install.

WTF?  No, there has been no forks relating to any of the antispam features.  Most of the antispam features are built into Bitcoin Core, which reject most possible valid transactions by default.  Have a look at AcceptToMemoryPool in src/main.cpp, and associated checks.  With no provisions against denial of service attacks, I can't see how bitcoin will survive in the long run, and of course bitcoin has to adapt to new attack vectors.  The rules do not change the validity of the transactions, only your willingness to relay and mine the spam.

I'm using extreme to get a point across. Everyone agreed Sybil Attack were attacks not choices. So unless you think that there was noting wrong with doing that you should use same critters with antispam rules that disrupted wallets...

EDIT: Just adding a link http://www.coindesk.com/chainalysis-ceo-denies-launching-sybil-attack-on-bitcoin-network/

Just look at statoshi.info. They have graphs and numbers for the stats of the unconfirmed transactions among other stuff.

if there isn't one already someone should graph the unconfirmed transactions total...

would be good to see how it compares to all of previous bitocin history if someone has the data to plot.

You're misunderstanding the difference between the rules of the network and the actions of the participants in the network.  If you send a message over the network then listeners will use the rules of the network to parse your message.  If they can parse it, it fits the rules of the network.  What your peers do in response to your message is in part determined by the rules of the network, because if your peers send unparseable messages no one will understand.  But even within the rules of the network, your peers have choices: they can rebroadcast your transaction to their peers, they can turn off their machine and go home, etc.  The rules of the network is not the same thing as the actions of the participants.

So why is such a big problems in city then? Well I also looked up on that and it is not density. Your cites are probably more populated then EU. Monopoles that you have there are the real problem I guess. One good think that came out of EU ware some rules on how much something can cost and what is penalty for not letting competition in your network. I can use infrastructure of one ISP and services of another ISP... So it is more or less your regulators fault...

Ah, makes more sense, you are correct there. Also if more people in less space paying similar taxes and rates, why isn't the infrastructure better? Bumming cheap skates.

If you change the rules of the network it is a fork. I can send a valid masage but if everyone is saying I don't care if it is valid it is not valid for me. So the protocol is different. So what else is it then a fork? Only difference is that you don't know it is coming and upgrading doesn't help since it is arbitrarily set of rules. Please enlighten me how this is any different?