Next level Bitcoin stress test -- June 29-30 13:00 GMT 2015

[ChetnotAtkins]

We are back at 1tx/s. So if the test has now ended they have achieved only a 10th of their goal of 200Mb

[1715023575]

1715023575

[1715023575]

1715023575

[1715023575]

1715023575

[1715023575]

1715023575

[blablaace]

I call bullshit on this entire 'stress test' idea .. the idea that one group of spam scammers could flood the network is absurd

[tspacepilot]

Are you saying that all miners are blacklisting addresses? That's news to me and I'm sure other bitcoiners as well.

Blacklisting is by definition about people, and no miner has ever attempted that to my knowledge.
Addresses are not people, and do not even exist in the Bitcoin protocol. Instead, they are converted into scripts.
Bitcoin Core has filtered what scripts it will relay or mine since Satoshi Nakamoto himself added filtering in 0.3.18 (2010 Dec 8th).
To disable this, you must use (or rewrite) patches that I have maintained almost as long as I have been involved in Bitcoin.
As far as I know, however, not a single miner is currently mining without any script filtering whatsoever.

Eligius is treating certain inputs differently then other inputs. Plain and simple. They are saying that Bitcoin owned by one entity is not allowed to have their transactions confirmed by their found blocks.

This is not the first time that eligius (via Luke-jr) has done something similar to harm Bitcoin. Gambling sites were previously blacklisted by default by mining software when this was pretty clearly not a wanted "feature" of such software. In other words the software did things that its users did not want. This is how a lot of people describe malware.

This is 100% false/FUD/lies.

Luke - it's important to remember when any of your regular lies, can be easily shown to be lies, and thus it's a bad idea to post those lies publicly.
If you can't even remember what you said 5 minutes ago, you need check your facts about yourself before you post about something in the past

When you write code to Blacklist something and even in the code, you call it a Blacklist, it's rather bazaar that you'd then go and say it isn't a Blacklist. Even worse, you added this code on by default in gentoo bitcoin so that anyone who didn't disable your Blacklist, got it.

Current code:
https://github.com/luke-jr/bitcoin/blob/0.10.x-ljrP/src/main.cpp#L943

Note that the name was originally BlacklistedPrefixes:
https://github.com/luke-jr/bitcoin/blob/19cc5c03a0448f8c88cc81538bf3e54594867e5e/src/script.cpp#L1834

Code:

static struct BlacklistEntry BlacklistedPrefixes[] = {
    {0x06f1b600, 0x06f1b6ff, "SatoshiDice"},
    {0x74db3700, 0x74db59ff, "BetCoin Dice"},
    {0xc4c5d791, 0xc4c5d791, "CHBS"},  // 1JwSSubhmg6iPtRjtyqhUYYH7bZg3Lfy1T
    {0x434e5452, 0x434e5452, "Counterparty"},
    {0x069532d8, 0x069532da, "SatoshiBones"},
    {0xda5dde84, 0xda5dde94, "Lucky Bit"},
};

Of course you can (yet again) say that dictionaries are wrong and you are right, but even the Oxford dictionary says your definition is wrong:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/blacklist
"Person" or "Product"

( By "Yet again" I am referring to: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=28402.msg1369274#msg1369274 )

While you are at it, don't forget to tell the real bitcoin devs that their use of the term Blacklist in the code is wrong
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/qt/paymentserver.cpp#L163

Code:

// Blacklisted certificate
if (cert.isBlacklisted()) {
   ReportInvalidCertificate(cert);
   continue;
}

So I take it since a "certificate" isn't a "person" then that code is wrong in main bitcoin

You like playing word games to pretend you aren't doing what people say you are doing, due to some technicality (that is also false)
Here's an example of how I'd expect you'd get out of murdering someone:
Luke:
"Your honour, I didn't shoot him to death, which is the charge levelled against me, thus I am not guilty of murder.
You see, what happened was, a bullet from the gun I had in my possessions left the barrel of the gun and pierced his body, but he was still alive.
When I pushed him, staggering, off the cliff, the entire fall to the ground far below, he was still alive, thus the bullet didn't kill him, it was the rocks below that killed him.
Thus I am not guilty of murder."

It's funny to see wizkid play these same games of yours also ...
Palpatine, you are training your padawan well ...

Giving a variable a name in code isn't the same thing as declaring in a court of law that you should interpret it by some dictionary definition.  People name things in code all kinds of stupid things, naming a variable is simply not the same thing as describing to someone in human language what it means or does.

[knowhow]

why to set a stress test? really you wont never get an acurance results as bitcoins is sended all the time and all days ,soo why to make a test ,not worthing your free time to check the time of them .The time it needs to get confirmation is just a security question.

[jackbox]

My own transaction to send money to someone is stuck thanks to your stress test. Over eight hours waiting now and my tx fee higher than your 10,000 satoshis. How long will this take until this ridiculous test concludes? All my btc is stuck in a change address in this transaction.

[Meuh6879]

No problem to send bitcoins to kraken ... with 0,00001 BTC fees.
Stop using low fees ...  

[kano]

Are you saying that all miners are blacklisting addresses? That's news to me and I'm sure other bitcoiners as well.

Blacklisting is by definition about people, and no miner has ever attempted that to my knowledge.
Addresses are not people, and do not even exist in the Bitcoin protocol. Instead, they are converted into scripts.
Bitcoin Core has filtered what scripts it will relay or mine since Satoshi Nakamoto himself added filtering in 0.3.18 (2010 Dec 8th).
To disable this, you must use (or rewrite) patches that I have maintained almost as long as I have been involved in Bitcoin.
As far as I know, however, not a single miner is currently mining without any script filtering whatsoever.

Eligius is treating certain inputs differently then other inputs. Plain and simple. They are saying that Bitcoin owned by one entity is not allowed to have their transactions confirmed by their found blocks.

This is not the first time that eligius (via Luke-jr) has done something similar to harm Bitcoin. Gambling sites were previously blacklisted by default by mining software when this was pretty clearly not a wanted "feature" of such software. In other words the software did things that its users did not want. This is how a lot of people describe malware.

This is 100% false/FUD/lies.

Luke - it's important to remember when any of your regular lies, can be easily shown to be lies, and thus it's a bad idea to post those lies publicly.
If you can't even remember what you said 5 minutes ago, you need check your facts about yourself before you post about something in the past

When you write code to Blacklist something and even in the code, you call it a Blacklist, it's rather bazaar that you'd then go and say it isn't a Blacklist. Even worse, you added this code on by default in gentoo bitcoin so that anyone who didn't disable your Blacklist, got it.

Current code:
https://github.com/luke-jr/bitcoin/blob/0.10.x-ljrP/src/main.cpp#L943

Note that the name was originally BlacklistedPrefixes:
https://github.com/luke-jr/bitcoin/blob/19cc5c03a0448f8c88cc81538bf3e54594867e5e/src/script.cpp#L1834

Code:

static struct BlacklistEntry BlacklistedPrefixes[] = {
    {0x06f1b600, 0x06f1b6ff, "SatoshiDice"},
    {0x74db3700, 0x74db59ff, "BetCoin Dice"},
    {0xc4c5d791, 0xc4c5d791, "CHBS"},  // 1JwSSubhmg6iPtRjtyqhUYYH7bZg3Lfy1T
    {0x434e5452, 0x434e5452, "Counterparty"},
    {0x069532d8, 0x069532da, "SatoshiBones"},
    {0xda5dde84, 0xda5dde94, "Lucky Bit"},
};

Of course you can (yet again) say that dictionaries are wrong and you are right, but even the Oxford dictionary says your definition is wrong:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/blacklist
"Person" or "Product"

( By "Yet again" I am referring to: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=28402.msg1369274#msg1369274 )

While you are at it, don't forget to tell the real bitcoin devs that their use of the term Blacklist in the code is wrong
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/qt/paymentserver.cpp#L163

Code:

// Blacklisted certificate
if (cert.isBlacklisted()) {
   ReportInvalidCertificate(cert);
   continue;
}

So I take it since a "certificate" isn't a "person" then that code is wrong in main bitcoin

You like playing word games to pretend you aren't doing what people say you are doing, due to some technicality (that is also false)
Here's an example of how I'd expect you'd get out of murdering someone:
Luke:
"Your honour, I didn't shoot him to death, which is the charge levelled against me, thus I am not guilty of murder.
You see, what happened was, a bullet from the gun I had in my possessions left the barrel of the gun and pierced his body, but he was still alive.
When I pushed him, staggering, off the cliff, the entire fall to the ground far below, he was still alive, thus the bullet didn't kill him, it was the rocks below that killed him.
Thus I am not guilty of murder."

It's funny to see wizkid play these same games of yours also ...
Palpatine, you are training your padawan well ...

Giving a variable a name in code isn't the same thing as declaring in a court of law that you should interpret it by some dictionary definition.  People name things in code all kinds of stupid things, naming a variable is simply not the same thing as describing to someone in human language what it means or does.

Indeed - then read the rest of the post that shows he is lying.

[publicjud]

Is the test over?

[Alley]

Record transactions past 24 hours.  162k.

[tspacepilot]

I don't think we should be so quick to give credit for today's test to the OP, he has made zero announcements anywhere about it, which is out of character for him. Could have easily been someone else or multiple different people, especially since the majority of transactions had no fee and the bursts of spam came at random times.

In any case it's over, mempool clearing out. I've had no problems sending and receiving Bitcoin even when the mempool was at peak levels. Paid 3 cents per transaction and it was not delayed at all.

There certainly were delays for many.  I had a payment to me delayed by several hours---but this wasn't as bad as when I got caught in the "test" last week and had a delay of 11 hours.  But if we shouldn't give credit to the OP, the who should we give it to?  Something was clearly going on.  11K unconfirmed transactions (which I witnessed earlier today) isn't the norm.

[Soros Shorts]

Thankfully Eligius pool is working against the DOS attack and that fact is encouraging, that at least some miners are willing to prioritize transactions based on something other then pure fee---in this case, the Eligius miners are standing up for the small guy and regular users who are being disrupted by this "experiment".

I moved my C1 to Eligius, and will keep it there until the DoS attack is over.  Mining to their donation address, because I think their anti DoS measures should be rewarded.

I had to move some miners out of BTC Guild at the last minute before it shut down and picked Eligius because of this. Call it filtering, blacklisting or whatever ... I think that this response was appropriate.

[el kaka22]

I don't think we should be so quick to give credit for today's test to the OP, he has made zero announcements anywhere about it, which is out of character for him. Could have easily been someone else or multiple different people, especially since the majority of transactions had no fee and the bursts of spam came at random times.

In any case it's over, mempool clearing out. I've had no problems sending and receiving Bitcoin even when the mempool was at peak levels. Paid 3 cents per transaction and it was not delayed at all.

There certainly were delays for many.  I had a payment to me delayed by several hours---but this wasn't as bad as when I got caught in the "test" last week and had a delay of 11 hours.  But if we shouldn't give credit to the OP, the who should we give it to?  Something was clearly going on.  11K unconfirmed transactions (which I witnessed earlier today) isn't the norm.

Me too... I supposed to have my payout from my sig. campaign few hours ago, however it is still unconfirmed until I've sent my transaction with extra fees (I've paid 20000 satoshis for just a 3xx byte tx!) and the sig. campaign's payment and my payment confirms in the same block, with my tx just after the sig. campaign's tx (so all the participants should thank me for paying extra fees to let their tx to be confirmed ). I think such tests should stop immediately, and none of them should be carried anymore. Please stop spamming the blockchain.

[wizkid057]

Thankfully Eligius pool is working against the DOS attack and that fact is encouraging, that at least some miners are willing to prioritize transactions based on something other then pure fee---in this case, the Eligius miners are standing up for the small guy and regular users who are being disrupted by this "experiment".

I moved my C1 to Eligius, and will keep it there until the DoS attack is over.  Mining to their donation address, because I think their anti DoS measures should be rewarded.

I had to move some miners out of BTC Guild at the last minute before it shut down and picked Eligius because of this. Call it filtering, blacklisting or whatever ... I think that this response was appropriate.

Thanks for the support!  It is appreciated.

[kano]

Thankfully Eligius pool is working against the DOS attack and that fact is encouraging, that at least some miners are willing to prioritize transactions based on something other then pure fee---in this case, the Eligius miners are standing up for the small guy and regular users who are being disrupted by this "experiment".

I moved my C1 to Eligius, and will keep it there until the DoS attack is over.  Mining to their donation address, because I think their anti DoS measures should be rewarded.

I had to move some miners out of BTC Guild at the last minute before it shut down and picked Eligius because of this. Call it filtering, blacklisting or whatever ... I think that this response was appropriate.

I prefer fungibility, which is the basic concept of Bitcoin, the peer to peer digital currency, not blacklisting.

However, Eligius' blacklisting had no positive effect on the stress test and helped no one.
In fact what Eligius did, helped prolong the problem.

[wizkid057]

I prefer fungibility, which is the basic concept of Bitcoin, the peer to peer digital currency, not blacklisting.

However, Eligius' blacklisting had no positive effect on the stress test and helped no one.
In fact what Eligius did, helped prolong the problem.

Not sure where you get your facts from, but as I had mentioned previously in this thread, there was no "blacklist" in play with regard to filtering this particular spam attack.  The transactions are pretty easily detectable because the attackers really don't seem to know what they're doing.

The only things prolonging the attack are the attackers and other pools/miners *not* filtering the scammer's spam.  The other pools/miners would rather fill their blocks with the attacker's transactions for an extra 0.1 BTC in fees vs protect bitcoin as a whole... or it's laziness.  Either way, any ill effects of this attack could easily have been countered 100% with the participation of just a few of the larger pools.

[kano]

I prefer fungibility, which is the basic concept of Bitcoin, the peer to peer digital currency, not blacklisting.

However, Eligius' blacklisting had no positive effect on the stress test and helped no one.
In fact what Eligius did, helped prolong the problem.

Not sure where you get your facts from, but as I had mentioned previously in this thread, there was no "blacklist" in play with regard to filtering this particular spam attack.  The transactions are pretty easily detectable because the attackers really don't seem to know what they're doing.

The only things prolonging the attack are the attackers and other pools/miners *not* filtering the scammer's spam.  The other pools/miners would rather fill their blocks with the attacker's transactions for an extra 0.1 BTC in fees vs protect bitcoin as a whole... or it's laziness.  Either way, any ill effects of this attack could easily have been countered 100% with the participation of just a few of the larger pools.

100% ... no that's false and you know it is.

Doing Luke's bidding? Not gonna happen by anyone but you.

The simple fact is that they were valid transactions with fees.

If following Luke's orders, your pool decides it wants to block valid transactions, that's up to him.

However, as I stated:
In fact what Eligius did, helped prolong the problem.

[jbreher]

The plan - We setup 32 Bitcoin servers that will send approximately 1 transactions per second each (up from 10 servers sending 2 transactions per second each) - Each of these transactions will be approximately 3kb in size and will each spend to 10-20 addresses - The outputs will then be combined to create large 15-30kb transactions automatically pointing back to the original Bitcoin servers.
Example: https://blockchain.info/tx/888c5ccbe3261dac4ac0ba5a64747777871b7b983e2ca1dd17e9fc8afb962519

•    Certain servers will be configured to include marginally larger than standard fees, thus guaranteeing delays from standard SPV wallets.

The target will be to generate 1mb worth of transaction data every 5 minutes. At a cost of 0.0001 per kb (as per standard fees) this stress test will cost approximately 0.1 BTC every five minutes.

Whatev. I'll run my own damn test. At the same time, I'll generate a transaction here and there, with some nominal increment over the standard fee you're paying. I bet I spend less, and end up more satisfied in the outcome, than do you.

[sturle]

Not sure where you get your facts from, but as I had mentioned previously in this thread, there was no "blacklist" in play with regard to filtering this particular spam attack.  The transactions are pretty easily detectable because the attackers really don't seem to know what they're doing.

The only things prolonging the attack are the attackers and other pools/miners *not* filtering the scammer's spam.  The other pools/miners would rather fill their blocks with the attacker's transactions for an extra 0.1 BTC in fees vs protect bitcoin as a whole... or it's laziness.  Either way, any ill effects of this attack could easily have been countered 100% with the participation of just a few of the larger pools.

100% ... no that's false and you know it is.

Doing Luke's bidding? Not gonna happen by anyone but you.

The simple fact is that they were valid transactions with fees.

If following Luke's orders, your pool decides it wants to block valid transactions, that's up to him.

Do you oppose the default anti-DoS filters which are built into Bitcoin Core as well, or just this particular anti-DoS filter because of problems with a specific person?

However, as I stated:
In fact what Eligius did, helped prolong the problem.

Perhaps you and I have different ideas of what the problem is?  To me the problem is the fact that legitimate low fee transactions were replaced by malicious spam.  Eligius solved this by allowing even the low fee transactions confirm, in the same way as the default settings in Bitcoin Core filter spammy transactions which used to cause DoS earlier.

[spartacusrex]

I prefer fungibility, which is the basic concept of Bitcoin, the peer to peer digital currency, not blacklisting.

However, Eligius' blacklisting had no positive effect on the stress test and helped no one.
In fact what Eligius did, helped prolong the problem.

Not sure where you get your facts from, but as I had mentioned previously in this thread, there was no "blacklist" in play with regard to filtering this particular spam attack.  The transactions are pretty easily detectable because the attackers really don't seem to know what they're doing.

The only things prolonging the attack are the attackers and other pools/miners *not* filtering the scammer's spam.  The other pools/miners would rather fill their blocks with the attacker's transactions for an extra 0.1 BTC in fees vs protect bitcoin as a whole... or it's laziness.  Either way, any ill effects of this attack could easily have been countered 100% with the participation of just a few of the larger pools.

100% ... no that's false and you know it is.

Doing Luke's bidding? Not gonna happen by anyone but you.

The simple fact is that they were valid transactions with fees.

If following Luke's orders, your pool decides it wants to block valid transactions, that's up to him.

However, as I stated:
In fact what Eligius did, helped prolong the problem.

I have to completely agree with Kano here..

A valid TXN is a VALID txn. Full stop. End of story. NO POLITICS.

If someone starts to show that it is possible to 'edit' which transactions go through the system, then I think it sets a very bad precedent.

I don't see why the miners weren't really happy to be slurping up all those extra fees !? That's what they live for.. isn't it.. ?

FREE BUFFET!! EAT AS MUCH AS YOU LIKE!! 

(Ok - so we made you work for it a little harder today, but we don't want you getting fat and lazy..)

[celebreze32]

I prefer fungibility, which is the basic concept of Bitcoin, the peer to peer digital currency, not blacklisting.

However, Eligius' blacklisting had no positive effect on the stress test and helped no one.
In fact what Eligius did, helped prolong the problem.

Not sure where you get your facts from, but as I had mentioned previously in this thread, there was no "blacklist" in play with regard to filtering this particular spam attack.  The transactions are pretty easily detectable because the attackers really don't seem to know what they're doing.

The only things prolonging the attack are the attackers and other pools/miners *not* filtering the scammer's spam.  The other pools/miners would rather fill their blocks with the attacker's transactions for an extra 0.1 BTC in fees vs protect bitcoin as a whole... or it's laziness.  Either way, any ill effects of this attack could easily have been countered 100% with the participation of just a few of the larger pools.

100% ... no that's false and you know it is.

Doing Luke's bidding? Not gonna happen by anyone but you.

The simple fact is that they were valid transactions with fees.

If following Luke's orders, your pool decides it wants to block valid transactions, that's up to him.

However, as I stated:
In fact what Eligius did, helped prolong the problem.

I have to completely agree with Kano here..

A valid TXN is a VALID txn. Full stop. End of story. NO POLITICS.

If someone starts to show that it is possible to 'edit' which transactions go through the system, then I think it sets a very bad precedent.

I don't see why the miners weren't really happy to be slurping up all those extra fees !? That's what they live for.. isn't it.. ?

FREE BUFFET!! EAT AS MUCH AS YOU LIKE!! 

(Ok - so we made you work for it a little harder today, but we don't want you getting fat and lazy..)

Blocking any transactions is the thin end of the wedge. If it starts for any reason it will snowball until international governments start ordering pools to block a regularly updated list of transactions. What if the pools were ordered to stop processing transactions from Greece?