Stress test litecoin?

[monsanto]

I'm curious how susceptible the litecoin network is in relation to bitcoin. I read that it cost around $5000 to stress test bitcoin and cause a backlog of transactions. How much easier/harder would it be to perform a similar stress test on the litecoin network? Any idea how much it would cost?

[NattyLiteCoin]

I think warren stated that it was no value added. Regardless, I'll be standing by for a coordinated event if it pops.

[plopper50]

I guess all coins are susceptible to stress testing like today's Bitcoin stress test. Litecoin has much faster confirmations than Bitcoin, but the transaction fees cost less. It might work out roughly the same to stress test Litecoin as it does to test Bitcoin. It would require more transactions to spam the network, but paying for them would be cheaper.

[monsanto]

For anyone interested, it looks like coblee answered my question:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ci25k/the_current_spam_attack_on_bitcoin_is_not/

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

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

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.

[M28MmickT]

For anyone interested, it looks like coblee answered my question:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ci25k/the_current_spam_attack_on_bitcoin_is_not/

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

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

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.

I love reddit. I learn something new there everyday. Never seen this before but its good to know that this important info is also on reddit.

[Bitcoiner2015]

I'm curious how susceptible the litecoin network is in relation to bitcoin. I read that it cost around $5000 to stress test bitcoin and cause a backlog of transactions. How much easier/harder would it be to perform a similar stress test on the litecoin network? Any idea how much it would cost?

I don't know the blocksize of litecoin, but it would surely be able to process 4x the number of transactions at least.
That and the fact that it is far less used than Bitcoin mean it is automatically further away from it's in built limits.

Stress test away though if you want, no one will really notice!

[Searing]

Stress test for Litecoin ..er you mean the fact it was around 8.25 and now has dumped to 4.25 usd?

well hell the STRESS TEST WORKED I'm all 'puckered' up ..you can stop this test at any time damn it!

(stressed...I'm fine really..its just a twitch...oh the Ax ...that's Molly....er WHY ARE YOU STARING AT MOLLY! ...wanders off mumbling to self.....)