A scaled up spam experiment : #SpamTheBlockchain As A Service

[Nicolas Dorier]

The spam experiments of the last two days was fine but small, and can't give us lots of answer on longer term about blocks being fulled.
I'm proposing to provide a Bitcoin site #SpamTheBlockchain as a Service and throw it to all redditors, so we get fixed about what will happen.

I will give redditors an address that they can fund to automatically spam the blockchain. (UTXO and Transaction explosion)
I expect the spam experiment will be order of magnitude bigger in space and time. (compared to the 2 last days)

At the same time, I expect providing real time charts about what is happening. (hopefully with the help of laurentmt)

Surely, if something big happens I will cut down the service.

The current debate about the block size is hurting everyone, and provoke lots of uncertainty about bitcoin and, rightfully, impact future investments.
If we can't reach consensus, I think it will provoke a split of Bitcoin (XTCoin versus Bitcoin), which is to my mind, the equivalent of a nuclear disaster to this space.

Every bit of data which can help to make the mind of everybody about the real effects of full blocks will, to my hope, unlock the situation.

Before working on it, I want first your impression about this idea.
Before you yell about any disaster that might or might not happen as a result of this experiment, I will point out that the current real disaster is today's lack of visibility on the future of Bitcoin by the conflict about block size.
I hope to bring some objective light which will help to find a consensus.

[1714976186]

1714976186

[1714976186]

1714976186

[1714976186]

1714976186

[1714976186]

1714976186

[Nicolas Dorier]

What I think will happen as a result of the experiment is a UTXO set getting bigger and bigger, which will bring down decentralization.
But if a spam experiment can bring down decentralization, is keeping the block size for preventing it a good justification ?

I may be wrong, but the best way to know is to test out and give the tools for everybody to make their own conclusions. (hopefully a common one)

144MB per days of drive space will be needed to keep up with it. (well, for non pruned node, 144 for the blocks, but also 144 for the UTXO set -may be wrong-)
Which will after some months, will have some impacts. (assuming redditor keep sending money for spamming, which might fail)

[dangh]

Hi Nicolas,

It's a very good idea to have spamming as a service and if this successed will have better vision about situation around block size and costs.

I'm going to support this, hopefully you will receive support from others to make spamming continually for two days.

[Nicolas Dorier]

Hi Nicolas,

It's a very good idea to have spamming as a service and if this successed will have better vision about situation around block size and costs.

I'm going to support this, hopefully you will receive support from others to make spamming continually for two days.

To be clear, my intention is to make it long lasting, not a simple 2 days, the economical repercussion on the middle/long term can't be felt in 2 days.
The spammer would be able to decide how much to spend and the timespan to spam.
I will make big transactions with the estimated fees for 3 blocks confirmations.

[btchip]

The current debate about the block size is hurting everyone, and provoke lots of uncertainty about bitcoin and, rightfully, impact future investments.
If we can't reach consensus, I think it will provoke a split of Bitcoin (XTCoin versus Bitcoin), which is to my mind, the equivalent of a nuclear disaster to this space.

I second that and think it's a very good idea to work on such service.

[amaclin]

see also
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1023190

it is possible to include arbitrary data in blockchain for only 0.0001 per kilobyte
(I am sure that the price can be lowered down to 0.00001 per kb or even less)

[btcdrak]

The spam experiments of the last two days was fine but small, and can't give us lots of answer on longer term about blocks being fulled.
I'm proposing to provide a Bitcoin site #SpamTheBlockchain as a Service and throw it to all redditors, so we get fixed about what will happen.

I will give redditors an address that they can fund to automatically spam the blockchain. (UTXO and Transaction explosion)
I expect the spam experiment will be order of magnitude bigger in space and time. (compared to the 2 last days)

At the same time, I expect providing real time charts about what is happening. (hopefully with the help of laurentmt)

Surely, if something big happens I will cut down the service.

The current debate about the block size is hurting everyone, and provoke lots of uncertainty about bitcoin and, rightfully, impact future investments.
If we can't reach consensus, I think it will provoke a split of Bitcoin (XTCoin versus Bitcoin), which is to my mind, the equivalent of a nuclear disaster to this space.

Every bit of data which can help to make the mind of everybody about the real effects of full blocks will, to my hope, unlock the situation.

Before working on it, I want first your impression about this idea.
Before you yell about any disaster that might or might not happen as a result of this experiment, I will point out that the current real disaster is today's lack of visibility on the future of Bitcoin by the conflict about block size.
I hope to bring some objective light which will help to find a consensus.

But we all know what happens if we spam the network to fill up blocks, this doesn't prove anything we don't already know. It doesn't remotely simulate the real world where real forces like innovation, adaptation and potentially fees all play a part in how things progress.

[Nicolas Dorier]

But we all know what happens if we spam the network to fill up blocks, this doesn't prove anything we don't already know. It doesn't remotely simulate the real world where real forces like innovation, adaptation and potentially fees all play a part in how things progress.

You don't know the impact it will have on decentralization. One of the reasons for the limit is protecting decentralization, do you think it hold if the UTXO set get to several GB ?

It will simulate innovation and adaptation, if the experience last for several months, people will need to take steps now to fix the problem.
What step will they take ? Will they leave Bitcoin and use centralized credit systems (intra coinbase transactions) ? Will they continue to use bitcoin only with higher fees ?
Will payment hubs be developped and incorporated to wallet software ? (please merge CLTV !)
Will they go to an alt coin ?

I don't think it is clear what will happen. But we can find out very easily with such experiment. If the result is one where the whole ecosystem disagree (and by that I mean the tech community also), then at least we will know how to evolve Bitcoin instead of staying in such divided opinions.

The problem is not 1MB versus 20MB, the problem is that we can experience a split of currency if the ecosystem continues to disagree.

[amaclin]

if the ecosystem continues to disagree.

Why should anyone be in agree with others in every question for infinite time?

[mmeijeri]

Why should anyone be in agree with others in every question for infinite time?

The problem is the risk of a disastrous split, not a general principle that everyone should agree for all time. Regardless of which side wins, the split itself may be disastrous for both sides.

[Nicolas Dorier]

if the ecosystem continues to disagree.

Why should anyone be in agree with others in every question for infinite time?

Thanks amaclin for your link.

The problem is not about 1MB versus 20MB. The problem is that we are in a disagreement.

A split of currency is even worse than a bug in the bitcoin consensus code provoking a fork, because a bug can be fixed with some short term damages.
A disagreement like we have now is equivalent to a consensus code bug provoking a fork which can't be fixed. (which might even put into question the future of any future crypto currency driven by open source)

Hell is not a hard fork caused by a bug. But a hard fork caused by fundamental disagreement.

We can't reach an agreement if everybody is speculating on their own what ifs. So I propose a large scale spam in size and time, so if something bad happen, we knows the numbers, can shut down the spam, reach a common conclusion and fix it before all blocks are full for real.

[amaclin]

The problem is that we are in a disagreement.

This is not a problem because we haven't even been in agreement.
We can not create such agreement, because of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox

So I propose a large scale spam in size and time, so if something bad happen

Good idea! Let us kill bitcoin as soon as possible!
I prefer large transactions which waste disk space rather than spaming blockchain with a thousands of small txs! 
It's partytime! 

[Nicolas Dorier]

The problem is that we are in a disagreement.

This is not a problem because we haven't even been in agreement.
We can not create such agreement, because of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox

So change to "we don't have consensus" if it pleases you.
I am for lifting the limit, but if I had to choose between staying at 1MB and having a new currency competing on par with bitcoin, then I choose the 1MB.

It is erroneous to think that "Bitcoin will become bitcoin XT and replace core". No it will not, since it is clear that there is no clear majority. We will have two branches of the Blockchain.

I don't want to enter in the block limit debate, since it is clear to me that everyone will camp on his position. Actually, by now, I think it is a waste of devs time to debate anymore.
But what we can do is a real environment experiment with objective data which will shift positions. (Maybe mine will be)

[amaclin]

So change to "we don't have consensus" if it pleases you.

We (bitcoin users) have. Now. Today. This second.
But "we" != "everyone". We do not have consensus with LiteCoin users. They have their own consensus.
And "todays consensus" != "tomorrow consensus".
May be tomorrow we will split to two forks with their own consensus. Why not? We can not prevent it

[btchip]

May be tomorrow we will split to two forks with their own consensus. Why not? We can not prevent it

one can hope that cold hard facts and statistics will help taking an educated decision

[JorgeStolfi]

If we can't reach consensus, I think it will provoke a split of Bitcoin (XTCoin versus Bitcoin), which is to my mind, the equivalent of a nuclear disaster to this space.

I think that is an exaggeration. 

I guess that fewer than 1% of the bitcoiners (2'000 in 200'000) are so opposed to the very idea of a hard fork -- even one with a single outgoing branch -- that they will rather use the "old bitcoin" only among themselves, with a ridiculous block rate, than user the "new bitcoin".

The other 99% of bitcoiners do not know about the issue, do not care enough to bother, are in favor of the change, or will assent to it because they do not want problems.

For the large players that matter -- large miners, exchanges, payment processors -- the 20 MB limit will be only a small annoyance. They will go with the crowd.

Thus, i expect that most players will upgrade to the large-block version, well before the fork.  They will not even notice when the fork happens, and the price will not suffer any permanent drop.

I also expect that most of those "rebels" will then give up and upgrade too, in order to recover the value of their investment.

Thus, if the "old bitcoin" does not die immediately after the fork block, it will probably die very soon after that.

[btcdrak]

If we can't reach consensus, I think it will provoke a split of Bitcoin (XTCoin versus Bitcoin), which is to my mind, the equivalent of a nuclear disaster to this space.

I think that is an exaggeration. 

I guess that fewer than 1% of the bitcoiners (2'000 in 200'000) are so opposed to the very idea of a hard fork -- even one with a single outgoing branch -- that they will rather use the "old bitcoin" only among themselves, with a ridiculous block rate, than user the "new bitcoin".

The other 99% of bitcoiners do not know about the issue, do not care enough to bother, are in favor of the change, or will assent to it because they do not want problems.

For the large players that matter -- large miners, exchanges, payment processors -- the 20 MB limit will be only a small annoyance. They will go with the crowd.

Thus, i expect that most players will upgrade to the large-block version, well before the fork.  They will not even notice when the fork happens, and the price will not suffer any permanent drop.

I also expect that most of those "rebels" will then give up and upgrade too, in order to recover the value of their investment.

Thus, if the "old bitcoin" does not die immediately after the fork block, it will probably die very soon after that.

I think quite the opposite will happen. The majority will go with Bitcoin Core, big companies and miners will not chose to be political, they will not risk being political in order to force a change. The nuance is, if Bitcoin Core chose 20MB blocks, everyone would upgrade, but if Bitcoin Core remains with 1MB blocks and Bitcoin XT attempts to hard fork, people wont join Bitcoin-XT.

Think about it from a business owner's perspective. Would you support the de facto official version which has dozens of developers, or a new fork that has 2?

[amaclin]

Think about it from a business owner's perspective. Would you support the de facto official version which has dozens of developers, or a new fork that has 2?

The only bitcoin buisnesses are mining and exchanging.
All other buisnesses are based on fiat currency.
Hodling bitcoins - is not a buisness. Today you hodl 1 btc. Tomorrow you will hodl 1 bitcoin and 1 gavincoin. 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

It's good to stress the chain, but it should be ramped up gradually so as to give people time to deal with the changes for the best adaptation. You could say the sudden shock would be a better stress test, but this isn't so much a test as much as a way of incentivizing optimization. (Right?)

One other thing to keep in mind is that if this were actual actual transaction demand miners and others could figure into their future business models that they can rely on these fees and they may start adjusting their fees to try to maximize revenue (making this attack prohibitively expensive, as we want it to be). If it's just a temporary attack, even if it continues for weeks, miners aren't going to have any incentive to change things. Well, they may have a personal or altruistic incentive to raise their fees for the good of the network, but not really an economic one. And even if they raise their fees, they may not have an incentive to make it easier for users to know how much to pay.

Also, it should be noted that if this jams up the network it doesn't necessarily support either side of the debate. It's not going to force a blocksize increase if everyone is experiencing delays; hopefully it will force better resource usage through the price system, though.

[Nicolas Dorier]

Think about it from a business owner's perspective. Would you support the de facto official version which has dozens of developers, or a new fork that has 2?

Frankly, I don't know. Imagine Bitpay Coinbase and a big china's miner say "FUCK IT GO XT", what would happen ? Maybe it is not possible, frankly I don't know. But being divided on an issue is hurting us, and I think better data and observation will make people's mind.
I'm in Bitcoin only since last year, it is the first big disagreement I have seen.

It's good to stress the chain, but it should be ramped up gradually so as to give people time to deal with the changes for the best adaptation. You could say the sudden shock would be a better stress test, but this isn't so much a test as much as a way of incentivizing optimization. (Right?)

The goal is not to kill the network, I will shutdown the service if any big problem.

It's not going to force a blocksize increase if everyone is experiencing delays;

I don't know. What if it cause decentralization to drop dead because of UTXO set size ? would you continue to defend the block limit ? (again, please I don't want to debate that, just to give an example)
Maybe it will break nodes count from 6K to 1K. (In which case, I can fix the problem by closing the opened utxo, so we all know that the block limit is not the main factor of decentralization)

Maybe nothing will happen and the fees will naturally rise, killing the spam.

ne other thing to keep in mind is that if this were actual actual transaction demand miners and others could figure into their future business models that they can rely on these fees and they may start adjusting their fees to try to maximize revenue (making this attack prohibitively expensive, as we want it to be). If it's just a temporary attack, even if it continues for weeks, miners aren't going to have any incentive to change things. Well, they may have a personal or altruistic incentive to raise their fees for the good of the network, but not really an economic one. And even if they raise their fees, they may not have an incentive to make it easier for users to know how much to pay.

I don't want to speak about "this I think will happen", the spam is meant to be massive for months so we can feel the impact. (if enough funding)

I think we will learn a lot, and have time to fixup things before it becomes real.
I wonder if miners will make contracts with payment providers to process "premium" transactions. (which would be a new revenue stream for miners, mainly the big one)

IF I DO IT, WHAT TYPE OF CHART WOULD YOU LIKE ?

What kind of data would you think help to make our minds ?

I don't want to debate whether it is useful. Vote will be made with wallets. I want to know if there is any strong opposition and deep concern about that, and if it is, why.