Topic: Ultimate Bitcoin Stress Test - Monday June 22nd - 13:00 GMT - page 4. (Read 21455 times)

I see bitcoin as a payment system for long physical distance transfer.
If I buy something from China I usually have to wait 2 or 3 weeks to get my item.
I don't care if it'll take another extra day.
The vendor can prepare the shipment and wait for the confirmation. If it gets removed from the mempool he can send me another payment request.
I assume the vendor usually collects his orders and send them next day.
So then an incidental hickup in the network is not a big deal.

Like I said, I don't see bitcoin being used for day to day local grocery payment.

I can now see why the blocksize issue is a major part in todays talks and issues with bitcoin, took my time reading part of everyone responses and a lot of people are now seeing the light to the blocksize incrementation, I know not everyone was part of the stress test but even with this it shows we could wait a while to get a confirmation.

If users had to wait a day to have their transaction confirmed, do you really think they'd continue to use Bitcoin after that?  What's the incentive for a user to continue using Bitcoin if there's another coin that will confirm their transaction faster and with a lower fee?  At the moment, Bitcoin has a reputation for being fast, reliable and cheap.  Are people really willing to jeopardise those three fantastic qualities?  If people start to think of Bitcoin as expensive, unreliable and slow, do you not think there would be less volume on the network and even less fees paid to miners?  No one can say with any certainty how it will play out, but I don't think people will stick to Bitcoin out of loyalty alone if another coin can offer a better service.  In a free market, Bitcoin has to remain competitive to retain its top spot.  

Also, try not to conflate spam and dust transactions with the blocksize issue.  Even if those transactions are forced off the blockchain, there will come a time where the userbase grows to a level where we can easily fill a 1MB block with legitimate, fee-paying transactions.  That's when legitimate transactions start getting delayed and people flock to this forum and other social media to whine and complain about it.  If the users are unhappy, consider how unhappy the merchants will be when they have a business to run and their income is delayed.  Then everyone realises the mistake and tries to rush through a fork at the last minute anyway.  That's not a sustainable path in my view.  It's much less disruptive to get the fork out of the way, before the complaints start to flood in and Bitcoin's reputation takes a massive hit in the process.  The blocksize increase is inevitable, it's just a matter of how painless you'd like the transition to be.

We should make clear, that there are 2 different things, we are talking about: Time to find a block, and the time till a transactions goes into a block. The average 10 min are the time it takes for a block to be found not the time till a transactions goes into a block.

And more importantly: You might not care if it takes a day, for your transaction to be confirmed, but a vendor does. There is a limit how long a unconfirmed transaction remains in the mem pool, after that, it gets deleted and the vendor doesn't get his money.

He said "on average"
So, If you have to wait for a day to have your transaction confirmed, viewed from a years perspective all transactions will be 10 minutes on average.
Not sure if he meant it like this, but it's true, not?

Eventually spammers will run out of ammo and everything comes back to normal.
Sure, temporarily you have a problem, but it will solve itself in the long run.
Especially when price has to rise due to increase of transaction costs.
Price have to rise because spammers have to buy back their coins when they're out of ammo.


Edit:
Although I don't necessarily like to wait for a day to have my transaction confirmed, I don't see it as a big problem either.
I think native bitcoin will never be used to buy yourself a coffee

Please stop presenting your speculations as fact and please stop pretending like you are one of the chosen ones, who understand Satoshis thoughts.
It's because of people like you, that some people see us Bitcoin users as cult.
If you would do some research, you would actually understand, that Satoshi was not godlike. Read his posts on this forum and you see, that he was making stuff up, while going along.  There is no reason, why he should have "known things, but didn't tell us". Read his posts and see, that he talked freely about his ideas and was very open minded to ideas from others.

I can assure you there is no flaw in what I've said, I've simply described how the protocol works.  You're the one who fails to understand it correctly.  The confirmation time for some of the transactions will be on average 10 minutes.  But if there are more than 1MB worth of transactions waiting, even if every single one of those transaction has a fee included, some of those transactions will have to wait for another block with space available if we stick with a 1MB limit.  If that still doesn't make sense to you, then I'm afraid I can't take your arguments seriously.  It's no wonder you're unduly panicked by the whole situation if you haven't taken the time and effort to understand why the fork is being proposed.  If you continue to post unsubstantiated accusations, wild conspiracy theories and outright fallacious statements, it's unlikely anyone else will take you seriously either.

Does anyone know who is really behind their business?

Their website is registered anonymously and their company address is also registered through a service that hides the true owners identity. The company is only a few months old and nobody had heard of it before the stress test. The whole company could be a front for someone with an agenda.

The fee is based on network data usage, not the amount of bitcoin, so it will always benefit the large transactions. To hold the promise of cheap fee for small transactions, block size must be expanded

Exactly, this was obviously never going to affect the price whatsoever. And I highly doubt it would if it was unannounced


My thoughts exactly.


As for their reddit post... Another test in 7 days? Wasn't this enough? What are these people trying to achieve? They are ruining their own business

And I'll be waiting for that data in the next few hours, it better be good in order to "compensate" for the slow transactions...

Categorically 100% false.  The 1MB limit is currently a hard limit, so by it's very definition, it limits that number of transactions the network can process.  If, for example, there were 20MB worth of transactions waiting, even if everyone paid over $10 dollars in fees, the network is unable to process them all in one go.  It would take 20 blocks to clear them with a 1MB blocksize.  That's likely to be over 3 hours for some of those transactions.  Would you not be annoyed if you paid a fee and still found you had to wait 3 hours because other people had paid a higher fee?  However, with an 8MB blocksize, you will still pay a fee to prioritise your transaction, but we could clear that queue in three blocks.  On average you'd be waiting 30 minutes at most.  This is the part most people don't seem to comprehend.  As the userbase grows, the blocksize must grow to accommodate it.

Nope, got it completely backwards again.  If there were no block reward right now, miners would have little incentive to secure the network with the amount of fees currently collected.  

If, hypothetically, there was no block reward right now, based on the transaction volume we are getting now, how much fee would need to be paid on each transaction to give at least the current average level of fees plus the 25 BTC reward?  Last time I bothered to do the math, we were averaging about 750 transactions per block.  By my figures, each transaction would have to have a fee of about .034 BTC just to cover the 25 BTC reward, plus a bit extra for the current fees that are already being paid (so there's no loss of mining revenue).  How many people are going to pay about $8 or $9 USD in fees for every single transaction?  Most would switch to an altcoin in a heartbeat if Bitcoin became that expensive.  If people aren't willing to pay that much, there will be even fewer transactions and that cost will then rise even further.  But increase the number of transactions in the block, rather than limiting it, then you can spread that cost over a greater number of users, making it more affordable.  Obviously we can squeeze in a few more than the 750 we're averaging at the moment, but we genuinely do need more users than the system will currently support to make this thing sustainable in future.  Unless you foresee Bitcoin becoming a niche, elitist, isolated haven for wealthy one-percenters, there is simply no other option than to accommodate more users.  More users equals more fees for miners, not less.

Once again, your logic is proving difficult to follow.  If this short term period of disruption is "inconsiderate", "malicious" and "selfish", how is risking the network frequently running in such a fashion by imposing an artificial bottleneck somehow a reasonable option in your opinion?  Obviously these weren't important transactions because it was a test, so it's inconsequential that they weren't able to continue transacting.  But there will likely come a time when more people start to use Bitcoin for normal transactions.  If the userbase is sufficiently large enough, what we've seen in this test would be the tip of the iceberg.  It will be regular users that are forced to stop sending transactions because of delays or unexpected rises in cost and this will be far more damaging to Bitcoin's longevity than any supposedly malicious test.  If Bitcoin doesn't scale, the users that can't be accommodated comfortably will simply switch to a more convenient payment method.  One that doesn't have varying fees and unexpected delays.



Firstly, "hacker"?  Seriously?  Your attempts to discredit anyone who disagrees with you are laughable.  Secondly, anyone with eyes can see that the blocksize limit is an issue, otherwise there wouldn't be so many threads discussing it.  Not everything is some bizarre conspiracy.  



Just understand that once there are more users, it won't just be spam or dust transactions, it was be all transactions that are subject to these conditions.  You will be paying the extra fees when the network is busy and if people pay a higher fee than you, it's your transactions that might be delayed.  We've never run the network in that fashion before, but if you want to attempt that, then it's your decision to vote that way if you mine or run a node.

I make it simple: Look at
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.15366
and tell me again, that Satoshi wanted the block size limit never to be raised.

As already mentioned, we are competing for a space in the next block, which is for auction. The higher the bid (fee) the more chance you have of getting included.

Interesting speculation.

Sorry, but that post just made it worse.
There is no evidence, that this "stress test" has anything to do with XT. On the contrary, I don't think, it was made by anyone, who is a longtime developer in the Bitcoin world, since it was carried out very poorly.

The last bold part, just shows, that you don't really have read into how the block limit came into being. Instead of making stupid conspiracy theories, you should look into that.

I guess there will be a report on the findings of the stress test in a few days.
It looks like an interesting experiment and someone spent their own resources to test it out a nice use for 20 Bitcoins, it does show though that adding fees to the standard txt will prioritize transactions as a self-adjusting mechanism.

(https://gist.github.com/petertodd/8e87c782bdf342ef18fb)

Good link on background info found a few pages back for those that aren't skimming the thread.

(Part 2 well this well be fun)
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3as4qr/coinwalleteu_stress_test_complete/

I don't know, who made this test and I quite frankly don't care, but claiming, that it must have been "Gavin and his buddies" just shows, how low people can fall to "prove" their point.
Badmouthing other people makes you look bad, not the person you badmouth. It's really a shame, how many ridiculous people are on the internet, especially on this forum.

You actually make a pretty good point with the above mentioned. Maybe it was some sort of weak fud thread experiment. 20BTC gone in the wind to miners today...lol