Bitcoin proves incredibly strong against stress test even in infant r-type state

[Bitcoinpro]

the stress test carried out by coin wallet eu and funded by the london banking house

seems to have completely unnerved them,  analysis by the Crypto Currency Central Bank

[1714786130]

1714786130

[1714786130]

1714786130

[1714786130]

1714786130

[1714786130]

1714786130

[1714786130]

1714786130

[1714786130]

1714786130

[KingAfurah]

Stress testing results can be found here: LINK

[turvarya]

the stress test carried out by coin wallet eu and funded by the london banking house

seems to have completely unnerved them,  analysis by the Crypto Currency Central Bank

I thought it was Gavin and his buddies 

[Bitcoinpro]

the stress test carried out by coin wallet eu and funded by the london banking house

seems to have completely unnerved them,  analysis by the Crypto Currency Central Bank

I thought it was Gavin and his buddies 

a stress test on the world's premiere financial network is not something cooked up by a bunch of

Ivy League grads no matter how much you like to believe what you read,

[AtheistAKASaneBrain]

Bitcoin obviously survived and it wasn't the end of the world, but the blockchain was bloated as hell and confirmations were taking hours. If anything, I think this test showed the necessity of a plan to scale the blocksize in the near and distant future.

[Argwai96]

Bitcoin obviously survived and it wasn't the end of the world, but the blockchain was bloated as hell and confirmations were taking hours. If anything, I think this test showed the necessity of a plan to scale the blocksize in the near and distant future.

There is a new test coming on the 29nd so lets see how result comes, I'm with you on what the test showed it took me 6 hours to get one confirmation thats where i saw why a bigger block size is needed to be future proof, any giving day bitcoin could turn into a the financial path for a nation in flames.

[KingAfurah]

Bitcoin obviously survived and it wasn't the end of the world, but the blockchain was bloated as hell and confirmations were taking hours. If anything, I think this test showed the necessity of a plan to scale the blocksize in the near and distant future.

The only transactions which were delayed were sent minutes before the spam started, or by users with wallets that don't properly calculate fees. Transactions went through quickly for anyone who paid higher fees. Blocksize never has to be increased for Bitcoin to function, especially since transaction volumes in the real world aren't gonna be spiking so suddenly. Even in an attack scenario like this it's barely a problem.

Many blocks had delay during the test.


    Data: 1x tx sent: @13:34 block: 362,033. Mined in block: 362120. 0.000 01 BTC/KB fee
    Data: 1x tx sent: @13:35 block: 362,033. Mined in block: 362120. 0.000 01 BTC/KB fee
    Data: 1x tx sent: @13:15 block: 362,033. Mined in block: 362113. 0.000 03 BTC/KB fee
    Data: 1x tx sent: @13:16 block: 362,033. Mined in block: 362044. 0.000 03 BTC/KB fee
    Data: 1x tx sent: @13:22 block: 362,033. Mined in block: 362041. 0.000 1 BTC/KB fee
    Data: 1x tx sent: @13:23 block: 362,033. Mined in block: 362043. 0.000 1 BTC/KB fee

[goosoodude]

London Banking House? As in a real fiat bank? I doubt that really. The stresstest only was done with Bitcoins worth 20 BTC, as far as i read. A bank surely would have given a couple thousands more. And if they would only do it to test how robust the network is or if they can attack it if needed.

Or is that some misleading name?

[DooMAD]

Bitcoin obviously survived and it wasn't the end of the world, but the blockchain was bloated as hell and confirmations were taking hours. If anything, I think this test showed the necessity of a plan to scale the blocksize in the near and distant future.

The only transactions which were delayed were sent minutes before the spam started, or by users with wallets that don't properly calculate fees. Transactions went through quickly for anyone who paid higher fees. Blocksize never has to be increased for Bitcoin to function, especially since transaction volumes in the real world aren't gonna be spiking so suddenly. Even in an attack scenario like this it's barely a problem.

There's no such thing as a "properly calculated fee", just like there's no such thing as a properly calculated auction bid.  The amounts will be both variable and difficult to predict.  There's no way of knowing whether traffic will spike just as you're about to send a transaction.  If you want to play guessing games when it comes to fees, you're more than welcome to stay behind when anyone who won't support a network running in that way decides to fork. 

[yayayo]

Bitcoin obviously survived and it wasn't the end of the world, but the blockchain was bloated as hell and confirmations were taking hours. If anything, I think this test showed the necessity of a plan to scale the blocksize in the near and distant future.

No, it only shows that people need to pay an adequate fee. Confirmation problems only occur for the transactions with the lowest fees / smallest values.

Because it wasn't the end of the world as Hearn and Andresen tried to make us believe, there's no hurry to increase the max_blocksize. We have enough time to find a well thought-out real solution to scalability, instead of rushing things with a "extrapolation-hero"-quick-fix that risks decentralization.

ya.ya.yo!

[melody82]

Bitcoin obviously survived and it wasn't the end of the world, but the blockchain was bloated as hell and confirmations were taking hours. If anything, I think this test showed the necessity of a plan to scale the blocksize in the near and distant future.

No, it only shows that people need to pay an adequate fee. Confirmation problems only occur for the transactions with the lowest fees / smallest values.

Because it wasn't the end of the world as Hearn and Andresen tried to make us believe, there's no hurry to increase the max_blocksize. We have enough time to find a well thought-out real solution to scalability, instead of rushing things with a "extrapolation-hero"-quick-fix that risks decentralization.

ya.ya.yo!

One of the major advantages of bitocoins is the low transaction fees.  If fees go up then network traffic will not.  It will be capped at a certain point where people will decide that the fee isn't worth it, and they will move elsewhere like to LTC.  I guess higher fees are very good if you hold decent alt coins.  But it would be a barrier to wider adoption.  Increasing the blocksize allows for more transactions, which is more or less the same except it allows for better adoption.  There will still be an incentive to mine, and the rewards could up up if the price of transactions rises at a reasonable rate with higher traffic. But 6 hour confirmations or worse, if we keep the 1 mb block size, will not be good for the future of bitcoins.

[Herbert2020]

in my opinion it was an interesting test. but it was not completed, i think they said that their server crashed and couldn't continue the test. so they scheduled another one. i am curious to know how that one turns out to be,

[Amph]

Bitcoin obviously survived and it wasn't the end of the world, but the blockchain was bloated as hell and confirmations were taking hours. If anything, I think this test showed the necessity of a plan to scale the blocksize in the near and distant future.

The only transactions which were delayed were sent minutes before the spam started, or by users with wallets that don't properly calculate fees. Transactions went through quickly for anyone who paid higher fees. Blocksize never has to be increased for Bitcoin to function, especially since transaction volumes in the real world aren't gonna be spiking so suddenly. Even in an attack scenario like this it's barely a problem.

this is my case in fact, i sent a transaction of 4.3 bitcoin with standard fee, and it was confirmed very fast, i was surprised, seeing how many other were stuck there because of this test

i used the simply core for that

[yayayo]

One of the major advantages of bitocoins is the low transaction fees.  If fees go up then network traffic will not.  It will be capped at a certain point where people will decide that the fee isn't worth it, and they will move elsewhere like to LTC.  I guess higher fees are very good if you hold decent alt coins.  But it would be a barrier to wider adoption.  Increasing the blocksize allows for more transactions, which is more or less the same except it allows for better adoption.  There will still be an incentive to mine, and the rewards could up up if the price of transactions rises at a reasonable rate with higher traffic. But 6 hour confirmations or worse, if we keep the 1 mb block size, will not be good for the future of bitcoins.

Transaction fees are NOT the main reason people use Bitcoin. LTC would never be an alternative, nor any of the other altcoins that exist currently. Confirmations will always take on average 10 minutes regardless btw.

Low transaction fees are certainly not the main reason for Bitcoin adoption - the main reason is having a highly fungible (= worldwide exchangeable across borders) store of value that is not subject to inflation or other methods of expropriation by a central party. The core paradigm which ensures that is decentralization.

That's the reason I came to Bitcoin. And all Bitcoiners I know came in because of the same motive: To be freed from the bonds of the terminally ill financial system we have today.

I did not come to Bitcoin to be able to do sub-$1-transactions for free. I'm fine with people wanting to do microtransactions, but they certainly do not need to have the same level of security as for reasonable-value transactions. It's outright idiotic to put the core paradigm of Bitcoin at risk (which is the very reason why Bitcoin has value at all), just to satisfy a spam-for-free use case. Solutions for microtransactions are in development - these transactions should take place in abstraction layers.

ya.ya.yo!

[pereira4]

Bitcoin obviously survived and it wasn't the end of the world, but the blockchain was bloated as hell and confirmations were taking hours. If anything, I think this test showed the necessity of a plan to scale the blocksize in the near and distant future.

There is a new test coming on the 29nd so lets see how result comes, I'm with you on what the test showed it took me 6 hours to get one confirmation thats where i saw why a bigger block size is needed to be future proof, any giving day bitcoin could turn into a the financial path for a nation in flames.

It seems some people out there don't believe that some people had tons of problems with transactions. They are deluded if they think we don't need bigger blocks asap. I mean if there is a single person having problems with 6 hour transactions now, it means we'll have guaranteed problems in the future when more people use it.

[Acidyo]

Looking forward to the new test on the 29th. I think this one will be the one that raises some eye brows, thats for sure!

[yayayo]

Bitcoin obviously survived and it wasn't the end of the world, but the blockchain was bloated as hell and confirmations were taking hours. If anything, I think this test showed the necessity of a plan to scale the blocksize in the near and distant future.

There is a new test coming on the 29nd so lets see how result comes, I'm with you on what the test showed it took me 6 hours to get one confirmation thats where i saw why a bigger block size is needed to be future proof, any giving day bitcoin could turn into a the financial path for a nation in flames.

It seems some people out there don't believe that some people had tons of problems with transactions. They are deluded if they think we don't need bigger blocks asap. I mean if there is a single person having problems with 6 hour transactions now, it means we'll have guaranteed problems in the future when more people use it.

Of course some people had problems, but that's a non-argument. If blockspace is limited, people will learn and simply pay higher fees. Bitcoin is simply not suited for buying single lollipops and expecting instant confirmation - such transaction dust is better handled by an abstraction layer that reduces the data footprint and improves confirmation times.

So nothing is needed asap. We need a well-thought-out solution that scales well, not some quick-fix that kicks the can further down the road and at the same time exposes Bitcoin to centralized control.

ya.ya.yo!

[DooMAD]

Low transaction fees are certainly not the main reason for Bitcoin adoption - the main reason is having a highly fungible (= worldwide exchangeable across borders) store of value that is not subject to inflation or other methods of expropriation by a central party. The core paradigm which ensures that is decentralization.

That's the reason I came to Bitcoin. And all Bitcoiners I know came in because of the same motive: To be freed from the bonds of the terminally ill financial system we have today.

I did not come to Bitcoin to be able to do sub-$1-transactions for free. I'm fine with people wanting to do microtransactions, but they certainly do not need to have the same level of security as for reasonable-value transactions. It's outright idiotic to put the core paradigm of Bitcoin at risk (which is the very reason why Bitcoin has value at all), just to satisfy a spam-for-free use case. Solutions for microtransactions are in development - these transactions should take place in abstraction layers.

ya.ya.yo!

That part is fair enough to a point, but even if we take microtransactions out of the equation, there will still come a time in future where our userbase could easily be large enough to fill a 1MB block on a regular basis.  Decentralisation is clearly important, but at the same time, you can't expect 10 minutes worth of transactions from all over the globe to fit neatly into something smaller than a floppy disk forever, right?

Of course some people had problems, but that's a non-argument. If blockspace is limited, people will learn and simply pay higher fees. Bitcoin is simply not suited for buying single lollipops and expecting instant confirmation - such transaction dust is better handled by an abstraction layer that reduces the data footprint and improves confirmation times.

So nothing is needed asap. We need a well-thought-out solution that scales well, not some quick-fix that kicks the can further down the road and at the same time exposes Bitcoin to centralized control.

ya.ya.yo!

This is where I start to disagree because it's a slippery slope.  Even if it's only a relatively small amount, say a dollar or two, if a fee is included, it belongs on chain.  That's why the fee is paid.  We shouldn't view problems with delays on these types of transactions as a "non-argument" because I don't find it likely that people, having experienced a delay in their transaction, will think "that didn't go well, I'll reward this bad service by paying more next time".  They're more likely to arrive at the conclusion "that didn't go well, I'll use something else next time".  If a viable solution isn't found before the blocks start to fill on a regular basis, users will migrate to a service that does confirm their desired transactions in good time and that means there will be less fees collected for miners (not more, like people keep suggesting for reasons that make no sense).  I don't hear any users of any other coins expressing this view that their coin should only be used for large transactions and those coins are the ones who stand to benefit if we start pissing off a sizeable chunk of our userbase.  If we force users out by turning this open network into a restricted one, there will be consequences to doing that.  Once it's done, those users will be difficult to win back.  

If Bitcoin ever turns into a niche service that a small number of people use once in a while to move a sizeable amount, that will generate less fees for miners than millions of people using it several times a day for small and medium sized transactions (and the odd large one).  I don't see how this isn't obvious to everyone.  There is no gain whatsoever in artificially limiting our target audience.  Further, as the block reward diminishes over time, those fees will become more crucial to incentivise miners, so if the network isn't generating large amounts of fees, only the miners with the lowest overheads will be able to afford to mine and that will lead to centralisation.  More users equals more fees collected and a larger incentive for more (unique) miners to secure the network.  We can't start dismissing all smaller transactions as "dust" and assume they're all worthless.  If a fee is paid, enough of them added together will sustain the network and ensure its longevity.  

[thebenjamincode]

Bitcoin will always survived. I have seen it for many times, for many of those who leaves and dislikes bitcoin will comeback again in sometimes. Bitcoin will not leave the community easily and I'm sure that in sometime it will grow again and rise again like what it did before when its price was about 900 usd