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

[Lucko]

What's the transaction fee for it? I think you guys need to clarify all these things from the very beginning ,so it doesn't pose a problem for us. Also i found last test rather interesting. This one was okayish,

It is not a fee problem. It is getting rejected since pool(not BTC mining pool but pays in BTC) is sending to more then 200 addresses. It worked yesterday but now it doesn't. Well to got confirmed after more then 24 hours... So I don't like this soft antispam(what the f**k is spam hire anyway???) fork that doesn't work as it should and it was not announced so we would know how to make transactions that will not be spam according to it. Changing rules like that can kill bitcoin not 20MB blocks.

What are you talking about? There was no soft-fork for antispam rules. The soft-fork was for BIP66 which has to do with transaction signatures. Also, a fork cannot be unannounced because the fork only happens when miners mine blocks for it, which can only happen with a code change. They won't change their code for no reason, so fork had to be announced.

I'm calling it soft fork since nodes and some miners have implemented antispam rules that reject valid transactions. And as far as I know it is unannounced.

[1714047842]

1714047842

[1714047842]

1714047842

[1714047842]

1714047842

[1714047842]

1714047842

[sturle]

I don't use core for transactions for a long time. Not safe. If there would have connect a Android device with Trezor option I might use my XT node for transactions but since this will probably not happen MyCelium works just fine. It even has integrated BTC to SEPA in it... So why use a node for transactions?

Not very smart of you.
1. You can be tricked into believing a transaction has been confirmed when it is not.
2. You leak information about which addresses belongs to you to full nodes you are talking to.

You can't use it of a phone.

It used to run fine on N900, but the blocks are too large now.  You statement will be true in the future as well if the block size is increased.

And now what is spam? How do you know that? Who give you the right to decide? If you don't like it don't run a node.  Are you a bank? Are we going the way banks are going? And how will users know so they will not be blocked.

Any node can make up its of mind about what spam is, and have the right to decide it.  There are some default filters, and some of them can even be adjusted by command line options.  If you don't like it, use a bank.  If you use an SPV wallet,  the random full node it talks to will decide for you if the transaction you are about to send, or one you expect to receive, is spam or not.  Users won't know what the policy of an individual full node is.  The average policy of the network will be estimated by full nodes, and translated into fee and priority estimates.  If you run a full node, you will know what is required to get a transaction confirmed with good probability within a given number of blocks.  If you send from an SPV wallet, you must trust the defaults and the full node you are talking to.

And just to be sure. There will not be 2 Bitcoins after hard fork. If it happens 25% will change to bigger blocks or will be killed by bitcoins tht are useless or even 51% attacks for sure... So saying there will be 2 and big problems is BS. When first big blocks is mined small chain will die in hours or days... Unless there are more exchanges and wallets on it. Than it might take longer or it might even manage to beat big one since miners might change back to it. But there will never be 2 Bitcoins for a long period time... Just look what happened with LTC and FTC.

Remember the last soft fork (BIP66)?  We had a six block chain split after the fork because F2Pool didn't take the time to verify the blocks it got before building upon them.  Why didn't they verify?  Because it takes time to verify a 1 MB block.  Why was this a problem?  Because F2Pool announced support for the soft fork, while actually they didn't.  Now try with a hard fork to even larger blocks.

[achow101]

What's the transaction fee for it? I think you guys need to clarify all these things from the very beginning ,so it doesn't pose a problem for us. Also i found last test rather interesting. This one was okayish,

It is not a fee problem. It is getting rejected since pool(not BTC mining pool but pays in BTC) is sending to more then 200 addresses. It worked yesterday but now it doesn't. Well to got confirmed after more then 24 hours... So I don't like this soft antispam(what the f**k is spam hire anyway???) fork that doesn't work as it should and it was not announced so we would know how to make transactions that will not be spam according to it. Changing rules like that can kill bitcoin not 20MB blocks.

What are you talking about? There was no soft-fork for antispam rules. The soft-fork was for BIP66 which has to do with transaction signatures. Also, a fork cannot be unannounced because the fork only happens when miners mine blocks for it, which can only happen with a code change. They won't change their code for no reason, so fork had to be announced.

I'm calling it soft fork since nodes and some miners have implemented antispam rules that reject valid transactions. And as far as I know it is unannounced.

What antispam rules? I know that Bitcoin Core will drop and not relay dust transactions, but that has been there for a very long time and it must have been announced and discussed to ever have made it into Bitcoin Core.

[Lucko]

Not very smart of you.
1. You can be tricked into believing a transaction has been confirmed when it is not.
2. You leak information about which addresses belongs to you to full nodes you are talking to.

Well it is much less of a problem then getting hacked and loss all your coins on core. And you can't use it without a computer. Unless you use TeamViwer and get hacked that way... It must have some backdore since even with 2FA someone connected to it and downloaded wallet.dat for 2 times. So I really don't see how you can use core in any practical way...

It used to run fine on N900, but the blocks are too large now.  You statement will be true in the future as well if the block size is increased.

It is not safe. Still just a core. And you need 20GB and Trezor is missing... And I'm sure it is not an app but something you need to compile... So not for normal user... Battery life?

Any node can make up its of mind about what spam is, and have the right to decide it.  There are some default filters, and some of them can even be adjusted by command line options.  If you don't like it, use a bank.  If you use an SPV wallet,  the random full node it talks to will decide for you if the transaction you are about to send, or one you expect to receive, is spam or not.  Users won't know what the policy of an individual full node is.  The average policy of the network will be estimated by full nodes, and translated into fee and priority estimates.  If you run a full node, you will know what is required to get a transaction confirmed with good probability within a given number of blocks.  If you send from an SPV wallet, you must trust the defaults and the full node you are talking to.

If you don't understand why the idea any node can make up its mined is dangers I can't help you. Normal user will think that if something works one day it will work the next. Even BitGo has problems today(service that pool is using). If that is not a problem I don't know what is... And running full node doesn't give me any idea what fee should be or rules on the network... And it is a security risk if you have funds on it...

Remember the last soft fork (BIP66)?  We had a six block chain split after the fork because F2Pool didn't take the time to verify the blocks it got before building upon them.  Why didn't they verify?  Because it takes time to verify a 1 MB block.  Why was this a problem?  Because F2Pool announced support for the soft fork, while actually they didn't.  Now try with a hard fork to even larger blocks.

Yes 1 hour and problem more or less solved. And I really don't see how big blocks will be any different. I think they learn the lessen and will be checking when next fork happens... And it was not like they didn't verify. There was a bug in a code they use. As sone as they got a block they start hashing the next one and checking one they got. But for some reason when they couldn't verify it they didn't reject it but start building empty blocks on it(I can explain you in full if you are interested why empty blocks).

What's the transaction fee for it? I think you guys need to clarify all these things from the very beginning ,so it doesn't pose a problem for us. Also i found last test rather interesting. This one was okayish,

It is not a fee problem. It is getting rejected since pool(not BTC mining pool but pays in BTC) is sending to more then 200 addresses. It worked yesterday but now it doesn't. Well to got confirmed after more then 24 hours... So I don't like this soft antispam(what the f**k is spam hire anyway???) fork that doesn't work as it should and it was not announced so we would know how to make transactions that will not be spam according to it. Changing rules like that can kill bitcoin not 20MB blocks.

What are you talking about? There was no soft-fork for antispam rules. The soft-fork was for BIP66 which has to do with transaction signatures. Also, a fork cannot be unannounced because the fork only happens when miners mine blocks for it, which can only happen with a code change. They won't change their code for no reason, so fork had to be announced.

I'm calling it soft fork since nodes and some miners have implemented antispam rules that reject valid transactions. And as far as I know it is unannounced.

What antispam rules? I know that Bitcoin Core will drop and not relay dust transactions, but that has been there for a very long time and it must have been announced and discussed to ever have made it into Bitcoin Core.

Yes but if you would read some more you would see that some additional rules were added in last days by some big pools and also big nodes. And it is a big problem for some services like BitGo...

[tspacepilot]

Yes but if you would read some more you would see that some additional rules were added in last days by some big pools and also big nodes. And it is a big problem for some services like BitGo...

Why is bitgo having a problem?  I heard that some pools had added measures to ignore tranasctions based on a rule intended to identify the "stress test" spam computers.  Is bitgo getting caught in that filter?  Even if they were, other pools would mine their tx.  Is the problem that bitgo isn't paying sufficient fees to be heard in the sea of spam?

[sturle]

Not very smart of you.
1. You can be tricked into believing a transaction has been confirmed when it is not.
2. You leak information about which addresses belongs to you to full nodes you are talking to.

Well it is much less of a problem then getting hacked and loss all your coins on core. And you can't use it without a computer. Unless you use TeamViwer and get hacked that way... It must have some backdore since even with 2FA someone connected to it and downloaded wallet.dat for 2 times. So I really don't see how you can use core in any practical way...

LOL!  Do you use Wintendo or some other virus hive?  Don't use your toys for storing money.  I run bitcoind on a Linux computer, which I can access over ssh from anywhere.

Any node can make up its of mind about what spam is, and have the right to decide it.  There are some default filters, and some of them can even be adjusted by command line options.  If you don't like it, use a bank.  If you use an SPV wallet,  the random full node it talks to will decide for you if the transaction you are about to send, or one you expect to receive, is spam or not.  Users won't know what the policy of an individual full node is.  The average policy of the network will be estimated by full nodes, and translated into fee and priority estimates.  If you run a full node, you will know what is required to get a transaction confirmed with good probability within a given number of blocks.  If you send from an SPV wallet, you must trust the defaults and the full node you are talking to.

If you don't understand why the idea any node can make up its mined is dangers I can't help you. Normal user will think that if something works one day it will work the next.

This is by design from the beginning.  If you don't like the way bitcoin is designed, you should use something else.  There is no way to change it.  There is no way to force anyone running a full node to mine or relay any specific transaction.

[Lucko]

LOL!  Do you use Wintendo or some other virus hive?  Don't use your toys for storing money.  I run bitcoind on a Linux computer, which I can access over ssh from anywhere.

And that is really user friendlily. Command line bitcoin... Not enough of a geek if there is a better way. I didn't even like that whan I had to do that for NMC. More secure it is less user friendly it is. I decided not to use it for money and I don't care if it gets hacked. Nice dedicated windows machine with antivirus TeamViwer... And 99.9% will think the way I do. Why should I put myself in all that trouble if there is a easier way?

Any node can make up its of mind about what spam is, and have the right to decide it.  There are some default filters, and some of them can even be adjusted by command line options.  If you don't like it, use a bank.  If you use an SPV wallet,  the random full node it talks to will decide for you if the transaction you are about to send, or one you expect to receive, is spam or not.  Users won't know what the policy of an individual full node is.  The average policy of the network will be estimated by full nodes, and translated into fee and priority estimates.  If you run a full node, you will know what is required to get a transaction confirmed with good probability within a given number of blocks.  If you send from an SPV wallet, you must trust the defaults and the full node you are talking to.

If you don't understand why the idea any node can make up its mined is dangers I can't help you. Normal user will think that if something works one day it will work the next.

This is by design from the beginning.  If you don't like the way bitcoin is designed, you should use something else.  There is no way to change it.  There is no way to force anyone running a full node to mine or relay any specific transaction.

No you need to change it to do that... If you don't it will not reject valid transaction. You need to add so-called antispam to it and say this in a valid translation but it is not valid for me. And when a big pools and nodes start doing this and that is blocking big wallets providers it is a big problem if they don't tell you what new rules are... this is practically unannounced a fork...

[Luke-Jr]

Is there a way to relabel Lucko from "Hero Member" to "Clueless Idiot"? <.<

This is by design from the beginning.  If you don't like the way bitcoin is designed, you should use something else.  There is no way to change it.  There is no way to force anyone running a full node to mine or relay any specific transaction.

No you need to change it to do that... If you don't it will not reject valid transaction. You need to add so-called antispam to it and say this in a valid translation but it is not valid for me. And when a big pools and nodes start doing this and that is blocking big wallets providers it is a big problem if they don't tell you what new rules are... this is practically unannounced a fork...

No, this is what Bitcoin has always done by design and also by default since 0.3.19 released by Satoshi.
Policy is not a network fork in any sense.

[SidJames]

So EU is light years ahead of you. Go figure...

Yeah, and the EU is half the size of the USA...

EDIT: You can get cable practically everywhere and fibre in towns as small as 1500 people.

How about outside those towns?
For example, where there's one hour per hectometre.

I thought I'd point out, the EU is not half the size of the US.
The EU outnumbers the USA by nearly 200 million.

EU Population: ~503 Million est.
USA Populaiton: ~318.9 Million est.

[Luke-Jr]

So EU is light years ahead of you. Go figure...

Yeah, and the EU is half the size of the USA...

EDIT: You can get cable practically everywhere and fibre in towns as small as 1500 people.

How about outside those towns?
For example, where there's one hour per hectometre.

I thought I'd point out, the EU is not half the size of the US.
The EU outnumbers the USA by nearly 200 million.

EU Population: ~503 Million est.
USA Populaiton: ~318.9 Million est.

I was referring to land mass, not population.
Your information means the EU is 4 times as dense as the US, so easier to build up infrastructure for...

[Lucko]

Is there a way to relabel Lucko from "Hero Member" to "Clueless Idiot"? <.<

This is by design from the beginning.  If you don't like the way bitcoin is designed, you should use something else.  There is no way to change it.  There is no way to force anyone running a full node to mine or relay any specific transaction.

No you need to change it to do that... If you don't it will not reject valid transaction. You need to add so-called antispam to it and say this in a valid translation but it is not valid for me. And when a big pools and nodes start doing this and that is blocking big wallets providers it is a big problem if they don't tell you what new rules are... this is practically unannounced a fork...

No, this is what Bitcoin has always done by design and also by default since 0.3.19 released by Satoshi.
Policy is not a network fork in any sense.

If you change the rules of the network it is a fork. I can send a valid masage but if everyone is saying I don't care if it is valid it is not valid for me. So the protocol is different. So what else is it then a fork? Only difference is that you don't know it is coming and upgrading doesn't help since it is arbitrarily set of rules. Please enlighten me how this is any different?

[SidJames]

So EU is light years ahead of you. Go figure...

Yeah, and the EU is half the size of the USA...

EDIT: You can get cable practically everywhere and fibre in towns as small as 1500 people.

How about outside those towns?
For example, where there's one hour per hectometre.

I thought I'd point out, the EU is not half the size of the US.
The EU outnumbers the USA by nearly 200 million.

EU Population: ~503 Million est.
USA Populaiton: ~318.9 Million est.

I was referring to land mass, not population.
Your information means the EU is 4 times as dense as the US, so easier to build up infrastructure for...

Ah, makes more sense, you are correct there. Also if more people in less space paying similar taxes and rates, why isn't the infrastructure better? Bumming cheap skates.

[Lucko]

So EU is light years ahead of you. Go figure...

Yeah, and the EU is half the size of the USA...

EDIT: You can get cable practically everywhere and fibre in towns as small as 1500 people.

How about outside those towns?
For example, where there's one hour per hectometre.

I thought I'd point out, the EU is not half the size of the US.
The EU outnumbers the USA by nearly 200 million.

EU Population: ~503 Million est.
USA Populaiton: ~318.9 Million est.

I was referring to land mass, not population.
Your information means the EU is 4 times as dense as the US, so easier to build up infrastructure for...

So why is such a big problems in city then? Well I also looked up on that and it is not density. Your cites are probably more populated then EU. Monopoles that you have there are the real problem I guess. One good think that came out of EU ware some rules on how much something can cost and what is penalty for not letting competition in your network. I can use infrastructure of one ISP and services of another ISP... So it is more or less your regulators fault...

[tspacepilot]

Is there a way to relabel Lucko from "Hero Member" to "Clueless Idiot"? <.<

This is by design from the beginning.  If you don't like the way bitcoin is designed, you should use something else.  There is no way to change it.  There is no way to force anyone running a full node to mine or relay any specific transaction.

No you need to change it to do that... If you don't it will not reject valid transaction. You need to add so-called antispam to it and say this in a valid translation but it is not valid for me. And when a big pools and nodes start doing this and that is blocking big wallets providers it is a big problem if they don't tell you what new rules are... this is practically unannounced a fork...

No, this is what Bitcoin has always done by design and also by default since 0.3.19 released by Satoshi.
Policy is not a network fork in any sense.

If you change the rules of the network it is a fork. I can send a valid masage but if everyone is saying I don't care if it is valid it is not valid for me. So the protocol is different. So what else is it then a fork? Only difference is that you don't know it is coming and upgrading doesn't help since it is arbitrarily set of rules. Please enlighten me how this is any different?

You're misunderstanding the difference between the rules of the network and the actions of the participants in the network.  If you send a message over the network then listeners will use the rules of the network to parse your message.  If they can parse it, it fits the rules of the network.  What your peers do in response to your message is in part determined by the rules of the network, because if your peers send unparseable messages no one will understand.  But even within the rules of the network, your peers have choices: they can rebroadcast your transaction to their peers, they can turn off their machine and go home, etc.  The rules of the network is not the same thing as the actions of the participants.

[smoothie]

if there isn't one already someone should graph the unconfirmed transactions total...

would be good to see how it compares to all of previous bitocin history if someone has the data to plot.

[achow101]

if there isn't one already someone should graph the unconfirmed transactions total...

would be good to see how it compares to all of previous bitocin history if someone has the data to plot.

Just look at statoshi.info. They have graphs and numbers for the stats of the unconfirmed transactions among other stuff.

[Lucko]

Is there a way to relabel Lucko from "Hero Member" to "Clueless Idiot"? <.<

This is by design from the beginning.  If you don't like the way bitcoin is designed, you should use something else.  There is no way to change it.  There is no way to force anyone running a full node to mine or relay any specific transaction.

No you need to change it to do that... If you don't it will not reject valid transaction. You need to add so-called antispam to it and say this in a valid translation but it is not valid for me. And when a big pools and nodes start doing this and that is blocking big wallets providers it is a big problem if they don't tell you what new rules are... this is practically unannounced a fork...

No, this is what Bitcoin has always done by design and also by default since 0.3.19 released by Satoshi.
Policy is not a network fork in any sense.

If you change the rules of the network it is a fork. I can send a valid masage but if everyone is saying I don't care if it is valid it is not valid for me. So the protocol is different. So what else is it then a fork? Only difference is that you don't know it is coming and upgrading doesn't help since it is arbitrarily set of rules. Please enlighten me how this is any different?

You're misunderstanding the difference between the rules of the network and the actions of the participants in the network.  If you send a message over the network then listeners will use the rules of the network to parse your message.  If they can parse it, it fits the rules of the network.  What your peers do in response to your message is in part determined by the rules of the network, because if your peers send unparseable messages no one will understand.  But even within the rules of the network, your peers have choices: they can rebroadcast your transaction to their peers, they can turn off their machine and go home, etc.  The rules of the network is not the same thing as the actions of the participants.

I'm using extreme to get a point across. Everyone agreed Sybil Attack were attacks not choices. So unless you think that there was noting wrong with doing that you should use same critters with antispam rules that disrupted wallets...

EDIT: Just adding a link http://www.coindesk.com/chainalysis-ceo-denies-launching-sybil-attack-on-bitcoin-network/

[sturle]

LOL!  Do you use Wintendo or some other virus hive?  Don't use your toys for storing money.  I run bitcoind on a Linux computer, which I can access over ssh from anywhere.

And that is really user friendlily. Command line bitcoin...

Yes, it is.  I never got the hang of graphical user interfaces.  They slow me down, and it is hard to automate anything with them.

Nice dedicated windows machine with antivirus TeamViwer... And 99.9% will think the way I do. Why should I put myself in all that trouble if there is a easier way?

Ehm..  Just about everything is easier than Windows.  The last Windows versions are so mindboggingly confusing, I can't understand how anyone can get anything done with it.  TeamViewer?  You have already lost.  It is not even open source.

Currently my main Bitcoin wallet is on a small 4 core ARM processor with 2 GiB RAM consuming about 2 W of power.  Fanless, about 5x5x5 cm³, costs less than 100 USD.  I have about a week of battery backup power replenished from a small 10W solar panel in case lightning knocks out the ground fault breaker when I am on holiday.  Could run the server and ADSL on solar and battery for the entire summer if the weather is nice.  /home is on an encrypted file system, of course.  Solid, stable, secure and no hassle to install.

No you need to change it to do that... If you don't it will not reject valid transaction. You need to add so-called antispam to it and say this in a valid translation but it is not valid for me. And when a big pools and nodes start doing this and that is blocking big wallets providers it is a big problem if they don't tell you what new rules are... this is practically unannounced a fork...

WTF?  No, there has been no forks relating to any of the antispam features.  Most of the antispam features are built into Bitcoin Core, which reject most possible valid transactions by default.  Have a look at AcceptToMemoryPool in src/main.cpp, and associated checks.  With no provisions against denial of service attacks, I can't see how bitcoin will survive in the long run, and of course bitcoin has to adapt to new attack vectors.  The rules do not change the validity of the transactions, only your willingness to relay and mine the spam.

[SidJames]

I gotta agree that a properly set up Linux box is a far better option (for almost everything) than a standard Windows set-up.

Unfortunately I have found through many years of trying to convert people to Linux that unless people grew up with a command line interface that trying to get them to give up on their familiar 'double-click does everything" is near impossible.

People fear the unfamiliar. lol.

[Lucko]

WTF?  No, there has been no forks relating to any of the antispam features.  Most of the antispam features are built into Bitcoin Core, which reject most possible valid transactions by default.  Have a look at AcceptToMemoryPool in src/main.cpp, and associated checks.  With no provisions against denial of service attacks, I can't see how bitcoin will survive in the long run, and of course bitcoin has to adapt to new attack vectors.  The rules do not change the validity of the transactions, only your willingness to relay and mine the spam.

I'm using extreme to get a point across. Everyone agreed Sybil Attack were attacks not choices. So unless you think that there was noting wrong with doing that you should use same critters with antispam rules that disrupted wallets...

EDIT: Just adding a link http://www.coindesk.com/chainalysis-ceo-denies-launching-sybil-attack-on-bitcoin-network/

EDIT: Badly done Antispam is even more dengues... If your Antispam filter would reject all mails that had more then 10 recipients you would not be happy about it... If sender would not get a message that that happen it would be even a bigger problem in case it is a legit impotent mail... So just say if it has more then 200 outputs it is spam is really stupid way to do that...