Bitcoin Forum
July 17, 2019, 09:28:55 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Ultimate Bitcoin Stress Test - Monday June 22nd - 13:00 GMT  (Read 21155 times)
KingAfurah
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28
Merit: 0


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 10:06:48 AM
 #181


Thanks for your analyses.
Do you already know, when you will do some other tests?
Some people have stated that such a test schould not be announced. What do you think about that?
We are currently evaluating how to execute tens of thousands of transactions simultaneously propagating the network, since this was the biggest issue we had. For the next test, we will certainly raise the number of servers and upload bandwidth. We are thinking about doing another stress test coming monday again, if issues can be resolved.

We don't think that an unannounced test will yield different results from unannounced testing.
Therefore, future tests will be announced in advance again.
1563355735
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1563355735

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1563355735
Reply with quote  #2

1563355735
Report to moderator
1563355735
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1563355735

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1563355735
Reply with quote  #2

1563355735
Report to moderator
1563355735
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1563355735

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1563355735
Reply with quote  #2

1563355735
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1563355735
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1563355735

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1563355735
Reply with quote  #2

1563355735
Report to moderator
Xialla
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036
Merit: 1000


/dev/null


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 10:43:47 AM
 #182

with 2 focking BTC you can do this madness for 12 hours? so, some bank, gov. are group of stupids may literally make bitcoin unusable? omg, I'm little bit disappointed and scared now.(
DarkHyudrA
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386
Merit: 1000


English <-> Portuguese translations


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 11:06:49 AM
 #183

I really hope your identity gets revealed. It is clear your intent is malicious, and you deserve the full weight of the internet coming down on you.

The fact that you are hiding makes you a coward.

Quote
CoinWallet.eu
What more identification you need?

English <-> Brazilian Portuguese translations
NeuroticFish
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1918
Merit: 1250


There are no mistakes. Only opportunities wasted.


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 11:55:26 AM
 #184

On monday, CoinWallet.eu conducted a stress test of the Bitcoin blockchain. Not only was our plan to see the outcome, but also to see how easy it would be for a malicious entity or government to create havoc for the Bitcoin community.

...

In our future stress tests, these lessons will be used to maximize the impact.

Wow, impressive! I didn't expect that "well used" 2 BTC can do this much.
However, the network "moved on", which is good. Some (known!) time frame for the services to be fixed / improved until the next stress test would be good.

turvarya
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714
Merit: 500


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 12:02:24 PM
 #185

I really hope your identity gets revealed. It is clear your intent is malicious, and you deserve the full weight of the internet coming down on you.

The fact that you are hiding makes you a coward.

Quote
CoinWallet.eu
What more identification you need?
Has anyone contacted coinwallet.eu to confirm they are behind this? No legit bitcoin exchange would tamper with the bitcoin network, especially over and over again.

Regardless whoever is doing this is trying to blow the negatives way out of proportion. There is little evidence that services were disrupted, yet in their report they say almost every service was crippled without any evidence to back it up. They even claim the market was effected which is super ignorant.

This is mostly being done to make people fearful, which is essentially terrorism.
He said terrorism, quick, send the troops. For democracy


https://forum.bitcoin.com/
New censorship-free forum by Roger Ver. Try it out.
KingAfurah
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28
Merit: 0


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 12:04:53 PM
 #186


1. Has anyone contacted coinwallet.eu to confirm they are behind this? No legit bitcoin exchange would tamper with the bitcoin network, especially over and over again.

2. Regardless whoever is doing this is trying to blow the negatives way out of proportion. There is little evidence that services were disrupted, yet in their report they say almost every service was crippled without any evidence to back it up.

3. They even claim the market was effected which is super ignorant.

4. This is mostly being done to make people fearful, which is essentially terrorism.
1. You can contact via mail, email or telephone, contact info on website.

2. We are mentioning 6 services related to bitcoin, you can hardly call this "almost every service was crippled". Our partners at MultiBit released their own report here: https://multibit.org/blog/2015/06/23/bitcoin-network-stress-test.html

3. We are not claiming the market was affected. Over the course of the stress test the bitcoin value increased by $2 which is statistically insignificant.

4. You don't need to fear transactions. One thing learned from the latest stress test is that the Bitcoin network self adjusts rather quickly, once the stress test was finished.
elrippo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008
Merit: 1001


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 12:18:59 PM
 #187

What are you guys all afraid of?!
Be nice to these people at coinwallet.eu
They show you the vulnerability in public costing nuts 2BTC
A Multimillion $ industrie can go down with 20BTC spend for days, weeks, months if the bitcoin developers do not react to this.
Better call, email and shout at your friendly bitcoin dev to change the code, so this "stress test" (attack) can not affect BTC!

Else, use XMR Monero -> find it in my Signature  Grin

For Advertisement. PM me to discuss.
pooya87
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1761



View Profile
June 24, 2015, 12:47:31 PM
 #188

i find this test rather interesting. i believe if it can find any flaws and then the developers can fix them to prevent any similar attacks, then they have contributed to bitcoin which is good.

i wonder if mining pools are going to do anything about this or they are just happy that they are getting so much bitcoin as fees.

elrippo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008
Merit: 1001


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 12:56:33 PM
 #189

i find this test rather interesting. i believe if it can find any flaws and then the developers can fix them to prevent any similar attacks, then they have contributed to bitcoin which is good.

i wonder if mining pools are going to do anything about this or they are just happy that they are getting so much bitcoin as fees.

Exactly  Grin
Find this
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=322748.20
https://coinreport.net/what-the-block-size-debate-says-about-bitcoin/
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-core-developer-commits-20mb-block-size-march-2016/
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2pvhs3/we_are_moving_towards_1mb_average_block_size_very/
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Blocksize_debate
http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/1747/bitcoin-block-size-what-are-the-rules

Now everybody is shaking about their infrastructure in the BTC environment  Cheesy
Hope now the blocksize is raised  Shocked Cool

For Advertisement. PM me to discuss.
RealMalatesta
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 1007



View Profile
June 24, 2015, 01:34:23 PM
 #190

Although I find this test interesting, I still would love to know a bit more about ther person(s) in the background.

When KingAfurah writes about "Our partners at MultiBit", I'd like to know what partnership they have with the persons behind coinwallet.eu.

ALso, and this has been asked before: KingAfurah wrote in the past that he is a millionaire and that he is slowly fed up by Bitcoin. So why has he changed his mind? What are his intentions?

                                           ▄▄███████▄▄
      ▄▄███████▄▄                       ▄███████████████▄      ▄▄███████▄▄
   ▄███████████████▄    ▄▄███████▄▄    ███████████████████  ▄███████████████▄      ▄▄███████▄▄
  ██████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀█████▄███████████████▄██████▌  ▐███▀▀▀████████████▀▀▀▀▀███████  ▄███████████████▄
 ███████   ▄▄▄▄▄████
█████████▀▀▀▀▀██████████   ███▌  ▐█████████     ▄▄▄███████████████████████████
████████   ▀▀▀▀██████████      ▄▄▄█████████▌   ▀▀▀   ██████████   ▀▀▀▀██████████████   ███   ██████
████████   ▄▄▄▄█████████████▌  ▐███████████   ▄▄▄▄   ██████████▌   ▄▄▄███████████████   ▀   ████████
████████   ▀▀▀▀▀████████████▌  ▐██████████▌  ▐███▌  ▐██████████▌   ▀▀   ██████████████▌   ▐█████████
 ███████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄██
███████████   █████████████████▄▄▄████████████   ▄▄▄███████████████   ▄   ████████
  ███████████████████████████   ████████▀███████████████▀  █████████████████████████   ███   ██████
   ▀███████████████▀███████████████████    ▀▀███████▀▀      ▀███████████████▀  ███████████████████
      ▀▀███████▀▀    ▀███████████████▀                         ▀▀███████▀▀      ▀███████████████▀
                        ▀▀███████▀▀                                                ▀▀███████▀▀
.BET█▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀











█▄▄▄▄▄▄▄


██▄▄        ▄▄██
████
██████████████
███████
███████████
 █████
███████████
 ▄██████████████▄
▄████████████████▄
██████████████████
▐██████████████▌
 ▀▀    ▀▀▀▀    ▀▀
.
PLAY NOW
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀█











▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█
TheAnalogKid
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 308
Merit: 250


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 01:35:49 PM
 #191

I really hope your identity gets revealed. It is clear your intent is malicious, and you deserve the full weight of the internet coming down on you.

The fact that you are hiding makes you a coward.

Quote
CoinWallet.eu
What more identification you need?
Has anyone contacted coinwallet.eu to confirm they are behind this? No legit bitcoin exchange would tamper with the bitcoin network, especially over and over again.

Regardless whoever is doing this is trying to blow the negatives way out of proportion. There is little evidence that services were disrupted, yet in their report they say almost every service was crippled without any evidence to back it up. They even claim the market was effected which is super ignorant.

This is mostly being done to make people fearful, which is essentially terrorism.
Wow.

You sir, seem to be the epitome of the saying "better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, rather than opening your mouth and removing all doubt".  As such, thankfully you will enter my Ignore list from here on.  

However, before you go, although it will probably be akin to yelling at the wall, I offer this view.

Thankfully there exists a fork process to be able to make necessary changes, able to surpass individuals and gain majority consensus.  I don't necessarily agree with the process that was used in the beginning to affect this change, it unfortunately detracted from a discussion of needed, proper changes, but it is what it is at this point.

Your idea that raising the block size will weaken Bitcoin I argue is quite foolish and misguided thinking.  All one needs to do is see, or know, someone who is willing to drive 5 extra miles to find a gas station that is selling at one or two cents cheaper per gallon.  They have fooled themselves into thinking they are "saving" 40 cents on a 20 gallon fillup, meanwhile they have just wasted $1 in gas to go that extra mileage.  

Similarly, not raising the block size has a greater chance of weakening or harming Bitcoin.  I'll explain why (although reading the preview before hitting post it's rather circular and long-winded, but I had a lot to talk about... I hope y'all will stay with me).

Everyone seems to keep talking about the pools and the extra cost associated with a larger block size.  I can fully understand that.  I operate a full node hosted in a datacenter, which hosts miners on P2Pool.  I see the daily effects of Bitcoin from an infrastructure point of view, I see how much computing resources are required to maintain it.  I fully understand what it will require as the block size grows as with the latest proposals.  This does not faze me in the least.  Today's desktop computers are fully capable of running a full node without breaking a sweat, and can still handle it well into the future.  Bandwith is not a major concern to most civilized areas, as the general public now has access to 100Mbit fiber to the home.  Today.  They're already talking Gigabit to the majority of homes, hell Google has deployed and is selling it already - https://fiber.google.com/cities/kansascity/plans/ .  The server I have is nothing special, an older HP model with a good amount of RAM and a small RAID-array (only 300GB... only).  I will not need to upgrade that server for at least 4-5 more years, even with the increase in storage the larger blocks may take up.  

I cry zero tears for the pools in China who are complaining about bandwith for the increased block sizes.  Change your government policies, or die off.  Just like the rest of the Bitcoin network, pool placement will evolve and self-adjust to keep the ecosystem running.  The miners won't care, they will re-point to another pool elsewhere and keep on going.

However, no one seems to be talking about it from the miners' angle.

In addition to hosting a full node, I also am a miner.  As a miner, I am salivating at the thought of increased block sizes.

As this test shows, the number of transactions was too great to get confirmations done quickly enough, and a backlog occurred.  You say "eh, no biggie, I can wait".  In general I'd probably agree with you, I'm personally generally in no hurry with my transactions, and can probably wait without much consequence.

But as a miner, I don't want to wait.  I don't want to have to run my miner for 8 hours when I have the possibility of gaining the same income in only 1 hour with an 8MB blocksize instead of a 1MB blocksize.

Being I play both node operator and miner, I can tell you with certainty that mining is the harder of the two to do and be profitable at.  The infrastructure costs for mining are magnitudes greater than running a node.  This will not change, and will only get worse as the block halving happens.  We need as much extra income as possible to help us offset the costs of running a miner.

I get the ideology of Bitcoin.  I get the ideology of "well, just raise the fees and your transactions will get approved quicker".  Hell, I even get the argument you and others have been preaching about "the 1MB limit is fine, I don't care if my transactions take longer, I'll just pay a fee if I want it quicker, let everyone else rot".  I get it, however I obviously don't agree with it.

Getting out of ideology, and into the real world, the fact is that Bitcoin is being propped to grow.  Big.  By large efforts from individuals and companies alike.  No matter the motivation, if Bitcoin survives and thrives as is being currently intended by the community at large, the number of transactions will increase, and it will be due to adoption by "normal folk".  These normal folk are going to hear about the benefits of Bitcoin as a payment system, namely "Reliable, Fast, Cheap".  It's funny that in the IT world (at least), the mantra is "Good, Fast, Cheap, pick two".  Which, is pretty much the argument afforded by most here objecting to the changes.  If it's Good and Cheap, it can't be fast, etc.  Unfortunately, most understand that outside of the educated few, that mantra is ignored, and the majority will demand all three.

I'll go back to my gas station analogy now.

Unfortunately the people outlined in the analogy represent the majority, and I don't mean in just terms of getting gas.  The psyche of us humans today is to minimize cost wherever possible, and maximize returns.  Unfortunately most are incapable of looking inside and realizing logic contrary to quick, popular thought, as in the case of realizing they should just pay the higher price, instead of continuing to hunt (or wait, in our case) for bargains.  

So, after all this long dissertation, where does this leave us, and why are we talking about gas stations instead of Bitcoin?

Because the masses will not want to wait for their transactions to take that long.  They hear "Good, Fast, Cheap" and possible or not, they want all three.  In order for Bitcoin to survive and thrive, it will need to do its best to match these qualities.  In order to do so, the blocksize will need to adjust so attempt to compensate for the additional volume, while attempting to adhere to the mantra.  They will want to put their transactions in for the default small fees, and they will want them processed just as quickly as everyone else's.  Right or wrong, and I am on the "they're wrong and should just understand it and pay the fees" side, this is ideology vs. real world.  Real world wins.

In my view it is far better to have thousands or tens of thousands of extra smaller transactions included in each block, to be able to reward the miners and keep them profitable, as I fully believe that will be more profitable than maintaining a smaller number of transactions with higher fees.  Law of averages.

And, lest I forget part of the main argument - the weakening of the network.

I circle back to above where I mention the costs of mining compared to costs of running a node.

My argument is simple - if the miners are unable to sustain costs and at least break even, they will die off.  Even the large farms will be unable to sustain, as they are not individuals doing this for a hobby, they are there to make a profit and pay back investors and workers' salaries, etc.

As miners die off, the diff will adjust lower.  With all the excess hardware that's out there, it will be trivial for a large corporation or country to buy up mass equipment, and wait for the time to strike.  Once low enough it would be possible for a 51% attack to be launched pretty easily, and then they garner control of the network.  Game over, done.

The miners are in control, and need to be, they are the heart of the network.  This change helps the miners going forward maintain the possibility of survival and profit.  It has always been seen that transactions are supposed to assume the role of providing income to miners and be the incentive for them continuing to run.  I just believe that more transactions, no matter how small, will be better to achieve that goal.

Finally, back on topic.

I appreciate the efforts of the folks running the tests.  It is good to be able to show now where deficiencies may lie in the network, before greater, general adoption.  You always try to stress things before you launch live, however there is nothing ever that will be able to properly simulate the real world usage of a fully live to-the-public application.  Sometimes you need to break things in production to be able to fix them.


elrippo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008
Merit: 1001


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 01:43:32 PM
 #192

I really hope your identity gets revealed. It is clear your intent is malicious, and you deserve the full weight of the internet coming down on you.

The fact that you are hiding makes you a coward.

Quote
CoinWallet.eu
What more identification you need?
Has anyone contacted coinwallet.eu to confirm they are behind this? No legit bitcoin exchange would tamper with the bitcoin network, especially over and over again.

Regardless whoever is doing this is trying to blow the negatives way out of proportion. There is little evidence that services were disrupted, yet in their report they say almost every service was crippled without any evidence to back it up. They even claim the market was effected which is super ignorant.

This is mostly being done to make people fearful, which is essentially terrorism.
Wow.

You sir, seem to be the epitome of the saying "better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, rather than opening your mouth and removing all doubt".  As such, thankfully you will enter my Ignore list from here on.  


Finally, back on topic.

I appreciate the efforts of the folks running the tests.  It is good to be able to show now where deficiencies may lie in the network, before greater, general adoption.  You always try to stress things before you launch live, however there is nothing ever that will be able to properly simulate the real world usage of a fully live to-the-public application.  Sometimes you need to break things in production to be able to fix them.




Amen  Grin

For Advertisement. PM me to discuss.
Mellnik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 243
Merit: 250


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 01:48:37 PM
 #193

@TheAnalogKid

You are one hell of a ignorant bastard who has no idea how stuff works in real world.
TheAnalogKid
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 308
Merit: 250


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 02:15:54 PM
 #194

@TheAnalogKid

You are one hell of a ignorant bastard who has no idea how stuff works in real world.
Why thank you for such an amazing, well thought out rebuttal.  I am dazzled by your ability to debate with well reasoned, thoughtful arguments to the matter at hand.   Your grasp of the English language and the ability to form proper sentences is also astounding, and I aspire to be as eloquent as you appear to be.

 Smiley
Amitabh S
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1002
Merit: 1000


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 02:29:03 PM
 #195

I think the fee should be a function of the number of unconfirmed tx at the time of sending. Would this work? Clients need to be more intelligent.

Coinsecure referral ID: https://coinsecure.in/signup/refamit (use this link to signup)
TheAnalogKid
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 308
Merit: 250


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 02:37:47 PM
 #196

I think the fee should be a function of the number of unconfirmed tx at the time of sending. Would this work? Clients need to be more intelligent.

You know, a similar idea might work.

Consider instead of auto-calculating the fee and charging it, might it instead be an idea to offer up a choice of fees?

For example say you're about to submit a transaction, and you have an "estimate delivery time" ability in your client.  It could show you the current backlog, and present you with fee options based on estimated time to pickup?  Similar to many sites today that use shipping calculators to estimate your shipping cost and based upon that how long before it'll get to you.

The problem I see is that most people either won't fully understand how to estimate fees properly, or won't care to spend the time to do so.  They just want to know the basics of "how much will it cost and how long will it take" by clicking a button and being done with it.
DarkHyudrA
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386
Merit: 1000


English <-> Portuguese translations


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 02:40:31 PM
 #197

I think the fee should be a function of the number of unconfirmed tx at the time of sending. Would this work? Clients need to be more intelligent.


The transaction fee is totally optional. If you don't want to get enough priority and can wait for the age to be higher so it can be accepted without fees or with a low value, it's OK.

Please read: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_fees

English <-> Brazilian Portuguese translations
Amitabh S
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1002
Merit: 1000


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 02:43:38 PM
 #198

I think the fee should be a function of the number of unconfirmed tx at the time of sending. Would this work? Clients need to be more intelligent.


The transaction fee is totally optional. If you don't want to get enough priority and can wait for the age to be higher so it can be accepted without fees or with a low value, it's OK.

Please read: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_fees

yes, yes of course. What I'm proposing is that in addition to the tx size, the client should also consider the size of the mempool when "proposing" a fee.

Coinsecure referral ID: https://coinsecure.in/signup/refamit (use this link to signup)
DarkHyudrA
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386
Merit: 1000


English <-> Portuguese translations


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 02:59:49 PM
 #199

I think the fee should be a function of the number of unconfirmed tx at the time of sending. Would this work? Clients need to be more intelligent.


The transaction fee is totally optional. If you don't want to get enough priority and can wait for the age to be higher so it can be accepted without fees or with a low value, it's OK.

Please read: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_fees

yes, yes of course. What I'm proposing is that in addition to the tx size, the client should also consider the size of the mempool when "proposing" a fee.

Well, the actual clients don't propose fees, they only have a fixed value on them.

English <-> Brazilian Portuguese translations
tspacepilot
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456
Merit: 1053


I may write code in exchange for bitcoins.


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 04:09:44 PM
 #200

I think the fee should be a function of the number of unconfirmed tx at the time of sending. Would this work? Clients need to be more intelligent.


The transaction fee is totally optional. If you don't want to get enough priority and can wait for the age to be higher so it can be accepted without fees or with a low value, it's OK.

Please read: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_fees

yes, yes of course. What I'm proposing is that in addition to the tx size, the client should also consider the size of the mempool when "proposing" a fee.

Well, the actual clients don't propose fees, they only have a fixed value on them.

Depends on your client.  I read somewhere (maybe upthread here, I can't recall, there's been a bunch of similar discussions on this) that the latest Multibit allows the user to set the transaction fee to anywhere between 1kSat and 10kSat per KB.

@DarkHyudrA: I think that it would be very good to see clients looking at the size of mempool when suggesting a fee and allowing a user to change that based on the importance of a quick confirmation for the transaction at hand.  If I'm eating at a restaurant and paying to a coinbase address, I don't really care if it confirms in 10 minutes or tomorrow, the restaurant is going to get paid and coinbase will eventually my money.  But if I'm buying into a poker game that starts in an hour and I need 2 confirmations to the join the game, that's a completely different situation.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!