Ultimate Bitcoin Stress Test - Monday June 22nd - 13:00 GMT

[futureofbitcoin]

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.

[AgentofCoin]

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.

[Quickseller]

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.

[ajareselde]

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

[AgentofCoin]

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.

[SuperClam]

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.

[futureofbitcoin]

two things:

1. Perhaps it was because of the backlash they received here, because they were concerned for innocent bitcoiners as well, that they did not do a full 24 hours as they had originally promised.


2. increasing fees isn't a solution; it'll cause less people to use bitcoin which is detrimental.

[SuperClam]

two things:
1. Perhaps it was because of the backlash they received here, because they were concerned for innocent bitcoiners as well, that they did not do a full 24 hours as they had originally promised.
2. increasing fees isn't a solution; it'll cause less people to use bitcoin which is detrimental.

Storing data is not "free".

The marginal cost of a transaction is a very real metric; especially in a system that expects that data to be stored by all participants for an extended period of time.

Ignoring this fact, does not make it go away.

The Bitcoin "ledger" and block chain is a globally replicated database.
Expecting to store your transaction data in it for little or no fees is irresponsible and selfish.

[CohibAA]

Seven days until a repeat attempt...


CoinWallet.eu Stress Test Complete

 

[AgentofCoin]

Seven days until a repeat attempt...


CoinWallet.eu Stress Test Complete

 

See everybody in one week, i guess. Lol.

[Kprawn]

Blockchain.info not refreshing anymore.
Other people with the same problem?

Yep, I got this last night " Maximum concurrent requests for this endpoint reached. Please try again shortly. "

I have to say, my test transaction confirmed pretty quickly, and it was even quicker than my normal day to day confirmations. What is the possibility that miners who stopped mining, switched on their rigs, just to cash in on the extra transaction fees, generated through this experiment?

I still say... If you want to have untainted results, run this test, when nobody knows about it. 

[TroyBTC]

Wow, reading through this thread, so many whiny users. This is exactly what should happen, yes on the live network. I can't imagine all the crying that would occur if a truly malicious entity with a budget of 5000 BTC instead of 20 BTC went to town on the network. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the average bitcoin user does not even think about the transaction fee, so it is all the more easy to disrupt people's business because you only have to spam the network with a few extra satoshis in fees, and then people freak out over their transactions taking forever and they don't know how much of a fee they need to use to get their txns processed in a timely manner. Better for the entire bitcoin userbase, and third party app developers, to become aware of this sooner than later, and to see how the network actually behaves when network volume exceeds the blocksize limit.

It seems to me that large-scale spam attacks designed to cripple all/most network activity may be unsustainable due to the eventual increase in fees per transaction needed to keep it up. However if an attacker merely wishes to be a nuisance and spam-out only the lowest fee transactions and fill up the blocks, that could happen on a sustainable basis with a relatively low budget.

[Meuh6879]

Yes, it's over ... 

[futureofbitcoin]

two things:
1. Perhaps it was because of the backlash they received here, because they were concerned for innocent bitcoiners as well, that they did not do a full 24 hours as they had originally promised.
2. increasing fees isn't a solution; it'll cause less people to use bitcoin which is detrimental.

Storing data is not "free".

The marginal cost of a transaction is a very real metric; especially in a system that expects that data to be stored by all participants for an extended period of time.

Ignoring this fact, does not make it go away.

The Bitcoin "ledger" and block chain is a globally replicated database.
Expecting to store your transaction data in it for little or no fees is irresponsible and selfish.

And ignoring the fact that as a currency, fees should be sufficiently low does not make it go away. I thought bitcoin wants to succeed as a currency, not just a database storage system?

[Acidyo]

Maybe the Bitcoin XT developers did this to spread FUD about bitcoin's integrity?

There's been no updates about results even though the test is over, I think their attack was way less harmful than projected and they don't even wanna talk about it, 20 BTC was gone within a few hours since the transaction fees went up and they didn't properly account for that.

There's delays of a few hours sometimes even when the bitcoin network is totally normal, so this didn't prove much. If someone really hated Bitcoin and had a million dollars to blow it wouldn't last more than a day, so it's an unlikely threat.

In fact, I think this proved that Bitcoin naturally responds to such an attack/transaction volume increase naturally and eliminates the problem. Transaction fees simply go up so people stop sending spam/dust transactions and only important transactions. This suggests a blocksize increase isn't necessary.

Real scientists would be happy to have a result and discuss it rather than disappear. This was not done by scientists, the illusion that it was an experiment to better understand Bitcoin is false. Those behind this 'test' only wanted to make Bitcoin look like it needs XT to survive. I'm fairly certain this was a stunt by Gavin and his buddies. If my suspicion is right then we certainly cannot trust the Bitcoin XT devs, they are willing to destabilize the inner workings of Bitcoin and hurt the Bitcoin economy, in order to spread fear among Bitcoiners so that they can gain control of Bitcoin's code. Fortunately it backfired, I think they were willing to delay transactions for over a day and cause some real damage.

Who else would spend 20 Bitcoins on this and try to be completely anonymous? No one...

You actually make a pretty good point with the above mentioned. Maybe it was some sort of weak fud thread experiment. 20BTC gone in the wind to miners today...lol

[turvarya]

I don't know, who made this test and I quite frankly don't care, but claiming, that it must have been "Gavin and his buddies" just shows, how low people can fall to "prove" their point.
Badmouthing other people makes you look bad, not the person you badmouth. It's really a shame, how many ridiculous people are on the internet, especially on this forum.

[EternalWingsofGod]

I guess there will be a report on the findings of the stress test in a few days.
It looks like an interesting experiment and someone spent their own resources to test it out a nice use for 20 Bitcoins, it does show though that adding fees to the standard txt will prioritize transactions as a self-adjusting mechanism.

(https://gist.github.com/petertodd/8e87c782bdf342ef18fb)

Good link on background info found a few pages back for those that aren't skimming the thread.

(Part 2 well this well be fun)
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3as4qr/coinwalleteu_stress_test_complete/

[turvarya]

I don't know, who made this test and I quite frankly don't care, but claiming, that it must have been "Gavin and his buddies" just shows, how low people can fall to "prove" their point.
Badmouthing other people makes you look bad, not the person you badmouth. It's really a shame, how many ridiculous people are on the internet, especially on this forum.

There's plenty of evidence that Gaven put all of his eggs in the Bitcoin XT basket. There is no way to prove it was him or another XT developer, but my instinct says it was, since they have a vested interest in getting people to adopt XT. There's only ~100 nodes running XT despite numerous publicity, so it's quite possible they took this drastic action to discredit Bitcoin Core and get people to switch to XT ASAP. I don't think anyone else cares enough to spend 20 BTC for a publicity stunt like this, unless it's just some rogue hacker who stole like 1000 bitcoins.

No way to prove anything, this is just speculation of course. People do crazy shit when their dreams and pride are slipping away.

I don't think Gaven and the XT people are necessarily bad btw. They probably had good intentions and wanted to save Bitcoin from the blocksize limit. Unfortunately their belief that blocksize limit is an issue serious enough to fork the blockchain is incorrect as the other developers suspected, so building XT was a waste of time for the most part, and it would be an unnecessary risk to ever implement the fork.

I foresee that Bitcoin will have a 1 mb blocksize limit forever and be totally fine, if not better off since increasing transaction fees will help balance out decreasing block rewards. Without increasing transaction fees mining would become unprofitable and the network would become insecure as almost all miners leave.

Satoshi was a genious, he meticulously created Bitcoin to survive indefinitely and not need any changes. Fundamentally changing the code ruins his work and would ultimately ruin Bitcoin.

Sorry, but that post just made it worse.
There is no evidence, that this "stress test" has anything to do with XT. On the contrary, I don't think, it was made by anyone, who is a longtime developer in the Bitcoin world, since it was carried out very poorly.

The last bold part, just shows, that you don't really have read into how the block limit came into being. Instead of making stupid conspiracy theories, you should look into that.

[monsanto]

I don't know, who made this test and I quite frankly don't care, but claiming, that it must have been "Gavin and his buddies" just shows, how low people can fall to "prove" their point.
Badmouthing other people makes you look bad, not the person you badmouth. It's really a shame, how many ridiculous people are on the internet, especially on this forum.

There's plenty of evidence that Gaven put all of his eggs in the Bitcoin XT basket. There is no way to prove it was him or another XT developer, but my instinct says it was, since they have a vested interest in getting people to adopt XT. There's only ~100 nodes running XT despite numerous publicity, so it's quite possible they took this drastic action to discredit Bitcoin Core and get people to switch to XT ASAP. I don't think anyone else cares enough to spend 20 BTC for a publicity stunt like this, unless it's just some rogue hacker who stole like 1000 bitcoins.

No way to prove anything, this is just speculation of course. People do crazy shit when their dreams and pride are slipping away.

Interesting speculation.

[Amitabh S]

As already mentioned, we are competing for a space in the next block, which is for auction. The higher the bid (fee) the more chance you have of getting included.