CoinWallet says Bitcoin stress test in September will create 30-day backlog

[LiteCoinGuy]

CoinWallet says Bitcoin stress test in September will create 30-day backlog

UK-based mining service CoinWallet is gearing up to conduct a stress test of the Bitcoin network in early September, which it said will likely render most standard wallet software "worthless" and create "nearly a 30-day backlog".

...

"We feel that our tests might prove to be the catalyst that propels the core devs and miners to implement the required hard fork that is desperately needed," Coinwallet told BitBeat.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/coinwallet-plans-bitcoin-dust-attack-september-create-30-day-transaction-backlog-1515981

[meono]

CoinWallet says Bitcoin stress test in September will create 30-day backlog

UK-based mining service CoinWallet is gearing up to conduct a stress test of the Bitcoin network in early September, which it said will likely render most standard wallet software "worthless" and create "nearly a 30-day backlog".

...

"We feel that our tests might prove to be the catalyst that propels the core devs and miners to implement the required hard fork that is desperately needed," Coinwallet told BitBeat.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/coinwallet-plans-bitcoin-dust-attack-september-create-30-day-transaction-backlog-1515981

I thought only Gavin would do such attack?


Gee so now we have another evil group?

[unamis76]

Again? Is this test going indeed to be on it's finest or are the servers crashing again? And why? We already got the message, thank you...

[meono]

Again? Is this test going indeed to be on it's finest or are the servers crashing again? And why? We already got the message, thank you...

Are you sure about that? did you read posts from the anti-BitcoinXT campaign?

Here is a summary: their crystal balls tell them we have a long way to get to blocksize limit increase.

[dothebeats]

Woohoooo! Hoooray for a new backlog! What are they planning to do? To prove a point that we need to have bigger blocks because of an intended stress-test? How about the normal days wherein transactions don't fill up the 1mb limit?

A planned heavy transaction numbers is different from the natural-occurring transactions per day on the network, so I don't really see what's the point of this stress-testing aside from pushing XT fork to happen.

[unamis76]

Again? Is this test going indeed to be on it's finest or are the servers crashing again? And why? We already got the message, thank you...

Are you sure about that? did you read posts from the anti-BitcoinXT campaign?

Here is a summary: their crystal balls tell them we have a long way to get to blocksize limit increase.

Yes, I am pretty much sure we already got the message. Otherwise, block size increase probably wouldn't be in the talks right now. The message is "you need to do something if you want many transactions to go through". That's what we already doing. Message has been clearly received and we are working on solving issues.

so I don't really see what's the point of this stress-testing aside from pushing XT fork to happen.

The point is probably creating chaos or disrupting their own service

[shorena]

Woohoooo! Hoooray for a new backlog! What are they planning to do? To prove a point that we need to have bigger blocks because of an intended stress-test? How about the normal days wherein transactions don't fill up the 1mb limit?

A planned heavy transaction numbers is different from the natural-occurring transactions per day on the network, so I don't really see what's the point of this stress-testing aside from pushing XT fork to happen.

It might be profitable for miners to force higher fees.

[21coin]

Heck we got the message the first time, don't do it again.

[meono]

Again? Is this test going indeed to be on it's finest or are the servers crashing again? And why? We already got the message, thank you...

Are you sure about that? did you read posts from the anti-BitcoinXT campaign?

Here is a summary: their crystal balls tell them we have a long way to get to blocksize limit increase.

Yes, I am pretty much sure we already got the message. Otherwise, block size increase probably wouldn't be in the talks right now. The message is "you need to do something if you want many transactions to go through". That's what we already doing. Message has been clearly received and we are working on solving issues.

so I don't really see what's the point of this stress-testing aside from pushing XT fork to happen.

The point is probably creating chaos or disrupting their own service

really? did you read posts like this:

Minimum benefits, lots of potential damages. XT only worsen the situation of bitcoin. Investors are panicking now because of the "split" which is just unnecessary. Idk why they are pushing bigger block size when in fact 1mb is just right in this current times. What's the most plausible explanation why they are pushing higher block size?

1MB isn't right.  We're already at 50% capacity(and increasing).  I think the recent stress tests showed us that 1MB isn't sufficient.

LN looks great, but it's not ready yet and won't be for a while.  This will help hold us over until other scaling solutions are ready to be deployed.

I don't like the increase schedule in XT, my hope is that XT is the catalyst to get Core team to agree on some sort of increase and we can reassess later once we see how other scaling solutions are progressing.  Just because the network moves to 8MB blocks now doesn't mean that we're beholden to the every two years schedule built into XT now.

The stress tests proved that blocksize isn't an issue. I love how some people come to the completely opposite conclusion.

Even with magnitudes more transactions than usual the network ran smoothly. The doomsday backlog that the stress test people projected never materialized, transaction fees went up to balance the spam and legitimate transactions continued to go through in the next block.

The Bitcoin Core team said block size doesn't need to be increased, and many people here have that view. Propaganda in the media is tricking many into thinking this is an issue when it is not.

Or you're just simply focusing on BitcoinXT supporters post?

[LiteCoinGuy]

if you cant handle this stresstests, what will you do when 3-5 millions people join bitcoin in the next year?

[21coin]

if you cant handle this stresstests, what will you do when 3-5 millions people join bitcoin in the next year?

Well I personally can wait until then until the need arises but this fork is just making things worse for bitcoin right now.

[unamis76]

Again? Is this test going indeed to be on it's finest or are the servers crashing again? And why? We already got the message, thank you...

Are you sure about that? did you read posts from the anti-BitcoinXT campaign?

Here is a summary: their crystal balls tell them we have a long way to get to blocksize limit increase.

Yes, I am pretty much sure we already got the message. Otherwise, block size increase probably wouldn't be in the talks right now. The message is "you need to do something if you want many transactions to go through". That's what we already doing. Message has been clearly received and we are working on solving issues.

so I don't really see what's the point of this stress-testing aside from pushing XT fork to happen.

The point is probably creating chaos or disrupting their own service

really? did you read posts like this:

Minimum benefits, lots of potential damages. XT only worsen the situation of bitcoin. Investors are panicking now because of the "split" which is just unnecessary. Idk why they are pushing bigger block size when in fact 1mb is just right in this current times. What's the most plausible explanation why they are pushing higher block size?

1MB isn't right.  We're already at 50% capacity(and increasing).  I think the recent stress tests showed us that 1MB isn't sufficient.

LN looks great, but it's not ready yet and won't be for a while.  This will help hold us over until other scaling solutions are ready to be deployed.

I don't like the increase schedule in XT, my hope is that XT is the catalyst to get Core team to agree on some sort of increase and we can reassess later once we see how other scaling solutions are progressing.  Just because the network moves to 8MB blocks now doesn't mean that we're beholden to the every two years schedule built into XT now.

The stress tests proved that blocksize isn't an issue. I love how some people come to the completely opposite conclusion.

Even with magnitudes more transactions than usual the network ran smoothly. The doomsday backlog that the stress test people projected never materialized, transaction fees went up to balance the spam and legitimate transactions continued to go through in the next block.

The Bitcoin Core team said block size doesn't need to be increased, and many people here have that view. Propaganda in the media is tricking many into thinking this is an issue when it is not.

Or you're just simply focusing on BitcoinXT supporters post?

I've read such posts and others in the forum. The backlog did not materialize, obviously, their tests failed consecutively and had offline times... They already proved that in full blocks you either pay up fees or you have delays. If you don't want delays you must pay higher. The network handled the situation as desired. But the situation we were in during stress tests wasn't as favorable as the one we have now.

This doesn't have anything to do with supporting XT or Core. This has to do with the blockchain being 100% capable of handling transactions on the next block with small or no fees.

[Beefcake]

Heck we got the message the first time, don't do it again.

Right?  What is the point?  Everyone knows.  We all know something needs to be done.  Why shoot bitcoin in the foot to get it done?  Maybe they want the btc price to plummet, and shut down other miners to decrease difficulty, then they can mine some blocks, and get ahead of the game?

I am in favor of larger block sizes, but this is not the way to make it happen.  In fact, if everyone disagrees with me then the end result will be higher fees imo resulting in BTC  becoming a storage of wealth and LTC becoming the major coin for transactions.  But No one should try to force the issue.  We need a community decision, consensus, not a rogue company trying to prove a point that has already been proven.

Stupid is as stupid does.

[Sourgummies]

September seems like a really bad month to do this with back to school crowd wanting access. If this is bothering me as a semi user,sure it will just scare off more people.

[dothebeats]

Woohoooo! Hoooray for a new backlog! What are they planning to do? To prove a point that we need to have bigger blocks because of an intended stress-test? How about the normal days wherein transactions don't fill up the 1mb limit?

A planned heavy transaction numbers is different from the natural-occurring transactions per day on the network, so I don't really see what's the point of this stress-testing aside from pushing XT fork to happen.

It might be profitable for miners to force higher fees.

But is against the concept of bitcoin: low transaction fees.

[HCubed]

So now, thanks to some misguided crusaders, every Ponzi operator will be gifted with a golden excuse for delayed payments, and every legitimate micro-transaction operation will be slammed as well.

Talk about FUD-packers - these guys take the cake. All hail the stress testers.... not.

[Borisz]

Woohoooo! Hoooray for a new backlog! What are they planning to do? To prove a point that we need to have bigger blocks because of an intended stress-test? How about the normal days wherein transactions don't fill up the 1mb limit?

A planned heavy transaction numbers is different from the natural-occurring transactions per day on the network, so I don't really see what's the point of this stress-testing aside from pushing XT fork to happen.

It might be profitable for miners to force higher fees.

But is against the concept of bitcoin: low transaction fees.

Its nice that Coinwallet wakes up and decides to cripple the network for a month. Also, how far until we start calling these things attacks and not "stress-tests"?

[NorrisK]

I think it is still a good thing to show what happens when more transactions are being made..

People that are saying now that the blocks are currently not filled up need to rethink.. Isn't it better to solve a potential problem before it becomes a real problem?

[S4VV4S]

Didn't some pools ignore TXs coming from the "attackers" last time around?
What's stopping them from doing it again?

[DiscoverCebu]

I think it is still a good thing to show what happens when more transactions are being made..

People that are saying now that the blocks are currently not filled up need to rethink.. Isn't it better to solve a potential problem before it becomes a real problem?

You mean I should start taking lessons about how to be safe from snipers or sharks just because there is a potential threat of one, until its close I dont think this XT discussion is even needed.