Topic: Ultimate Bitcoin Stress Test - Monday June 22nd - 13:00 GMT - page 5. (Read 21441 times)

Quote from: ajareselde on June 22, 2015, 10:28:57 PM

It will be interesting to see if this stress test brings about a solution to the block size problem. Hopefully we can find a solution to ensure that the blockchain continues to function without any issues or unnecessary delays.

This test isn't really going to change anything, or bring any solutions... This is only raising awareness of a problem we already know we have, it isn't proposing anything new. It's an interesting test, but with a predictable outcome for which the solution is already in discussion for quite some time, and there is already code ready to be deployed that helps prevent a situation like this.

Yes, the test is meaningless - it's an annoyance aiming at price manipulation.
The solution to stop spam attacks like this is certainly not a max_blocksize increase, because even at 20x times the blocksize the resources needed to perform such an attack are still extremely small for any serious attacker.
The practical solution for now is: Prioritize your transaction by sending it with an adequate fee.
The general solution is: Increase fees for spam transactions, i.e. fees should rise non-linearly (maybe exponentially) for small-value transactions with big data size.
ya.ya.yo!

Uh.. NO. If they wanted to manipulate the price, they wouldn't have announced this; then people might start panicking not knowing who is attacking the system. That will manipulate the price.

If there was indeed a malicious agenda, that agenda would more likely be to persuade users to support the proposed block increase changes.

1. Spam chain to cause problems with poorly implemented wallet solutions/clients.
2. Users of above clients have trouble transacting.
3. Convince those users that only the block size increase can solve their problems.

The real short-term solution to these tests?

Implement better fee estimation in the client software.
Choose wallet software that allows for more intelligent fee estimation.

AgentofCoin

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1001

Was there also some stress test on 16th this month? I had a transaction that got first confirmation only after about 6 hours, and was sent with standard fee.
The size of the block was 912.46875 KB, and number of unconfirmed transaction at the time ranged from 2500-3000 (+)

cheers

Yes there was something on the 16th.
But no one knew if it was related to the btc price rising (235ish to 250ish) and causing more tx or it was actual testing.

ajareselde

legendary

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1000

Satoshi is rolling in his grave. #bitcoin

Was there also some stress test on 16th this month? I had a transaction that got first confirmation only after about 6 hours, and was sent with standard fee.
The size of the block was 912.46875 KB, and number of unconfirmed transaction at the time ranged from 2500-3000 (+)

cheers

Quickseller

copper member

Activity: 2996

Merit: 2374

Quote from: AgentofCoin on June 22, 2015, 10:06:17 PM

Quote from: futureofbitcoin on June 22, 2015, 09:40:22 PM

Quote from: futureofbitcoin on June 22, 2015, 09:40:22 PM

It will be interesting to see if this stress test brings about a solution to the block size problem. Hopefully we can find a solution to ensure that the blockchain continues to function without any issues or unnecessary delays.

This test isn't really going to change anything, or bring any solutions... This is only raising awareness of a problem we already know we have, it isn't proposing anything new. It's an interesting test, but with a predictable outcome for which the solution is already in discussion for quite some time, and there is already code ready to be deployed that helps prevent a situation like this.

Yes, the test is meaningless - it's an annoyance aiming at price manipulation.

The solution to stop spam attacks like this is certainly not a max_blocksize increase, because even at 20x times the blocksize the resources needed to perform such an attack are still extremely small for any serious attacker.

The practical solution for now is: Prioritize your transaction by sending it with an adequate fee.

The general solution is: Increase fees for spam transactions, i.e. fees should rise non-linearly (maybe exponentially) for small-value transactions with big data size.

ya.ya.yo!

Uh.. NO. If they wanted to manipulate the price, they wouldn't have announced this; then people might start panicking not knowing who is attacking the system. That will manipulate the price.

The "test", as it was originally intended, was supposed to last longer and cause a backlog for 3 days.
Seems it only lasted 24 hours and the backlog is pretty much clear now.
Until they release their "report" on their "findings", I'm not really sure what actually happened today.

They had claimed that they had budgeted for roughly 32 hours worth of transactions, however would stop pushing new transactions after 24 hours.

They were suppose to continue to push transactions into the network at a consistent rate, however from the looks of it, they pushed transactions onto the network for a few hours when the "test" first started, then stopped for several hours and then resumed pushing transactions again. The test was suppose to create a backlog of transactions worth several hundred MB, however this clearly did not happen.....as of now it appears that the backlog of unconfirmed transactions is pretty much clear.

I think it is pretty clear that they did not use up their entire claimed budget for this test.

AgentofCoin

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1001

It will be interesting to see if this stress test brings about a solution to the block size problem. Hopefully we can find a solution to ensure that the blockchain continues to function without any issues or unnecessary delays.

This test isn't really going to change anything, or bring any solutions... This is only raising awareness of a problem we already know we have, it isn't proposing anything new. It's an interesting test, but with a predictable outcome for which the solution is already in discussion for quite some time, and there is already code ready to be deployed that helps prevent a situation like this.

Yes, the test is meaningless - it's an annoyance aiming at price manipulation.

The solution to stop spam attacks like this is certainly not a max_blocksize increase, because even at 20x times the blocksize the resources needed to perform such an attack are still extremely small for any serious attacker.

The practical solution for now is: Prioritize your transaction by sending it with an adequate fee.

The general solution is: Increase fees for spam transactions, i.e. fees should rise non-linearly (maybe exponentially) for small-value transactions with big data size.

ya.ya.yo!

Uh.. NO. If they wanted to manipulate the price, they wouldn't have announced this; then people might start panicking not knowing who is attacking the system. That will manipulate the price.

The "test", as it was originally intended, was supposed to last longer and cause a backlog for 3 days.
Seems it only lasted 24 hours and the backlog is pretty much clear now.
Until they release their "report" on their "findings", I'm not really sure what actually happened today.

futureofbitcoin

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250