Bitcoin Forum

What do people expect to happen if the coinwallet stress tests start on Thursday and continue through September?

Some people seem to believe it is a storm in a teacup, while others think it could be very disruptive.

People who don't pay tiny transaction fees won't get their transactions included in blocks.

Correct.

If you include a sufficient transaction fee on your transactions, it will be "a storm in a teacup".  Therefore, those people who generally include a sufficient transaction fee correctly believe that's what it will be.

If you do not include a sufficient transaction fee on your transactions, it will be "very disruptive".  Therefore, those people who generally do not include a sufficient transaction fee correctly believe that's what it will be.

There are some wallets that do a good job of calculating an appropriate fee for the conditions on the network.  There are others that do not.  Clearly those that are using wallets that calculate an appropriate fee will find that it is "a storm in a teacup", and those that are using inadequate wallets will find it to be quite disruptive.

We will see a lot of users coming to the forums complaining about delayed confirmations, people who know there's a stress test in progress will just pay a higher fee to have their transaction included quickly and life goes on. :)

Sure but the reality is also this: It will be impossible for everybody to pay enough fees at the same time to get their transactions included in the next block simply because there isn't enough room for everybody.

There will be delays no matter how smart people are trying to manage the fees.

Stress test.. we are all going to be stressed our bitcoin tx's took more than an hour to confirm.

Is it right the delayed transactions all go into the mempool? The mempool should rapidly balloon in size if it's full of delayed transactions. How big could it get by the end of September, and could it cause problems for the miners if it gets too big? I don't know much about mining but I remember the last stress test ballooned the mempool's size.

How long is it expected to go on? Are we talking about a few days or a couple of weeks? Apologies for being itnorant but didn't read up on it.

Stressed man,I be stresssed!!

Time frame for this?

Planned to take action on sept, 10. They didn't tell how long it will occur but they are aiming 30 days of backlog transaction.

I think most people are going to be caught up once in this attack, either receiving or sending coins. Once everyone knows there is an attack, they will avoid sending coins in September or pay higher fees. It's not going to create chaos. I am calling this an attack because it is not a test. There is no hypothesis to prove.

i think people are going to start sending less and less transactions,or send with high fees. I'd feel pretty bad if a transaction i sent got stuck in the blockchain.  :'(

Is there any method to contribute in "anti-stress test", like "anti-doss", it really will make us very stressful during the stress test.

I didn't really pay attention the last time. I don't think I made any transactions during the height of the stress test, but I did make dozens of transactions when there was a considerable backlog in the mempool. 0.0002 fee seemed to do the trick. Didn't lose any sleep over it. Not really worried about the next one.

The only thing we should expect is a large amount of noobs coming here complaining that using bitcoin is A. Too costly or B. too long to confirm which both will be true at that time.

I don't see what could go wrong other than that.

Well if the really do it and if they do it massively as they are saying they will do it than we will see a huge backlog of the transactions.

More experienced users will check what fee they should send their bitcoins with and they won't have any problems if they send with a fee bigger than what's coinwallet spamming with. The less experienced users that don't know about the stress test or don't know about the fee thing will have major problems.

Looking generally, Bitcoin will be crippled as long as the test is lasting and backlog isn't cleared.

A large amount of noobs coming here complaining..... that they don't know how to use bitcoin, or how the technology works -- this seems like a common problem around here. I certainly would not be losing any sleep over it. :P

Might be a problem for certain services if they don't adjust their transactions fees in time. Would suck if you buy "instant bitcoins" and that they only get delivered after a day or two for instance..

Like I said above:

Thanks.

I did not really get to much disturbance the last time,so hopefully about the same this time. Fingers crossed.

The tiny transactions that it's not worth paying high fees on will be severely delayed. If they come to you from a service that decides what fee to pay, if any, you will probably have to wait until long after the stress test is over to receive your coin. Transactions sent without fees are likely to sit in the mempool until after the whole test is over and the mempool backlog is cleared.

If by "everybody" you mean all the transactions (including the "stress test transactions"), then you are correct.

However, it is certainly possible for people to pay a higher transaction fee (per kilobyte) than the "stress test" is paying.  If they do that, then their transaction will almost certainly be included in the next block or two, while the "stress test" transactions will have to wait until there is room for them.

If someone can't afford to pay a higher fee (per kilobyte) than the stress test is paying, then they'll just have to wait or use something other than bitcoin.

and 0.11.0 do exactly this  8) ... when you use "recommended fees" WITHOUT THE CROSS in "emit with zero fees". :P

bitcoin core handle stress test without any other setting.

if you pay the fees, the transaction can pass above.

Yes this is what I meant but it will also perfectly simulate how the network/market will react under real heavy load traffic.

Everyone CAN'T pay the fees to pass above, only SOME. Which is clearly a problem.

oh please ... normal fees 0,02 mBTC and with the stress test from july/august ? ====> 0,1 mBTC


2 cents.  ;D

Yeah hopefully it will not do interruption regarding the confirmation ???

Of course those rates aren't problematic but at some point it will.

That may be true at some point. However, it is dangerous to make grand assumptions about how adoption, transaction growth and miners' incentives will look 5, 10, 20 years into the future. We simply cannot know, and heretofore unconsidered incentives and/or centralizing trends may occur in the future. Thus, the most responsible way to deal with capacity is incrementally, with consideration for maintaining incentives that favor security.

That's sounds like a nice approach but only IF hardforking and achieving consensus would be easy and it doesn't seem to be the case actually...

Why not just let it go and have a wait and see approach? Only use a hard fork if things seems to go problematic.

I'll throw that right back at ya. :P

Why not take a "wait and see" approach to capacity, incrementally increasing capacity as needed? Rather than making arbitrary assumptions about capacity that we may or may not need far into the future?

Implementing a hard fork on the basis of consensus shouldn't be easy, as it puts all users at risk.

Well, this is pretty much the direction we are heading right now and probably the reason behind these stress tests.

Imagine you are a big player that have made up capacity previsions and want to bring up new influx of users with mass marketing campaing but can't do it before the system scale enough or otherwise you would just lose your money. At this point what would you do? Personally I would stress test the system to make shit hits the fan forcing the system to scale before your anticipated influx of users rather than after.

It is pure speculation but from a big business perspective it makes a lot of sense and I think this is what actually going on. Otherwise it would makes no sense to invest so much money bloating the system just for the lulz.

But technical matters that affect network security can't be determined by the mere possibility that a corporation might make a marketing push, which might result in increased adoption. That is simply too far removed from reality. If we are averaging 400 kB, it seems like more than doubling transaction volume would be quite a feat in and of itself. Why don't we start with that?

We can. However if what I said is right, we can only expect these stress tests to occur more often and amplifying each time. Big businesses know how to make things happen if they need so.

Personally I don't have any problem with this approach so I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

look at the last 6 block mined
https://blockchain.info/
there all like 700-900KB
full blocks! and lots of them!
how many poeple needed to wait an extra 10-20mins for there TX to get confirmed, before we up the limit?
i think at this point waiting an extra 10-20mins for all 6 confirmations is a given
where do you draw the line?