Bitcoin Forum

Again? Is this test going indeed to be on it's finest or are the servers crashing again? And why? We already got the message, thank you...

Are you sure about that? did you read posts from the anti-BitcoinXT campaign?

Here is a summary: their crystal balls tell them we have a long way to get to blocksize limit increase.

so I don't really see what's the point of this stress-testing aside from pushing XT fork to happen.

1MB isn't right.  We're already at 50% capacity(and increasing).  I think the recent stress tests showed us that 1MB isn't sufficient.

LN looks great, but it's not ready yet and won't be for a while.  This will help hold us over until other scaling solutions are ready to be deployed.

I don't like the increase schedule in XT, my hope is that XT is the catalyst to get Core team to agree on some sort of increase and we can reassess later once we see how other scaling solutions are progressing.  Just because the network moves to 8MB blocks now doesn't mean that we're beholden to the every two years schedule built into XT now.

Yes, I am pretty much sure we already got the message. Otherwise, block size increase probably wouldn't be in the talks right now. The message is "you need to do something if you want many transactions to go through". That's what we already doing. Message has been clearly received and we are working on solving issues.


The point is probably creating chaos or disrupting their own service ::)

The stress tests proved that blocksize isn't an issue. I love how some people come to the completely opposite conclusion.

Even with magnitudes more transactions than usual the network ran smoothly. The doomsday backlog that the stress test people projected never materialized, transaction fees went up to balance the spam and legitimate transactions continued to go through in the next block.

The Bitcoin Core team said block size doesn't need to be increased, and many people here have that view. Propaganda in the media is tricking many into thinking this is an issue when it is not.

Woohoooo! Hoooray for a new backlog! What are they planning to do? To prove a point that we need to have bigger blocks because of an intended stress-test? How about the normal days wherein transactions don't fill up the 1mb limit?

A planned heavy transaction numbers is different from the natural-occurring transactions per day on the network, so I don't really see what's the point of this stress-testing aside from pushing XT fork to happen.

It might be profitable for miners to force higher fees.

But is against the concept of bitcoin: low transaction fees.

I think it is still a good thing to show what happens when more transactions are being made..

People that are saying now that the blocks are currently not filled up need to rethink.. Isn't it better to solve a potential problem before it becomes a real problem?

Heck we got the message the first time, don't do it again.

Right?  What is the point?  Everyone knows.  We all know something needs to be done.  Why shoot bitcoin in the foot to get it done?  Maybe they want the btc price to plummet, and shut down other miners to decrease difficulty, then they can mine some blocks, and get ahead of the game?

I am in favor of larger block sizes, but this is not the way to make it happen.  In fact, if everyone disagrees with me then the end result will be higher fees imo resulting in BTC  becoming a storage of wealth and LTC becoming the major coin for transactions.  But No one should try to force the issue.  We need a community decision, consensus, not a rogue company trying to prove a point that has already been proven.

Stupid is as stupid does.

I know this is post is going to be controversial, but here goes... :)

This spam attack is not economically feasible on the Litecoin network. I will explain why.

Here's one of txns that is spamming the network: https://blockchain.info/tx/1ec8370b2527045f41131530b8af51ca15a404e06775e41294f2f91fa085e9d5 (https://blockchain.info/tx/1ec8370b2527045f41131530b8af51ca15a404e06775e41294f2f91fa085e9d5)

For creating 34 economically unfeasible to redeem UTXOs, the spammer only had to pay 0.000299 btc ($0.08). In order to clean up all these spammy UTXOs, you needed a nice pool to mine this huge transaction for free. And the only reason why the pool was able to was because the spammer sent these coins to simple brain wallets! If these were random addresses, they would stick around in the UTXO set forever! (or until each BTC is worth a lot)

The reason why Litecoin is immune to this attack is because Litecoin was attacked in a similar fashion (though to a much smaller degree) years ago. And I noticed this flaw in Bitcoin and patched it in Litecoin. There's code in Bitcoin that says if someone sends a tiny amount of coins to an output, make sure that he pays the mintxfee. This makes sense because you wouldn't want someone creating "dust" spam by sending small amount of coins. BUT the code still only enforces the same mintxfee if you send to many small outputs. The fix is simple: require a mintxfee for each tiny output.

Because of this fix, Litecoin's UTXO set is much more manageable than Bitcoin's. But the pull request for this that I created against the bitcoin codebase was rejected 3 years ago: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1536 (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1536)

One of the reasons why I created Litecoin was because it was hard for someone like me (who was a nobody back then) to make any changes to Bitcoin. Having a different set of developers take the code in a different direction can only be good for the resiliency of the whole cryptocurrency movement. And that is why there is value in altcoins.