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

[Cryddit]

Edit: found his motive for XT shilling, he is an altcoin developer. How surprising!

Nope.  Got altcoin code ready to go, but then had a good long look at the market and use cases, and it's a fucking cesspool out there.  There's essentially no way to launch an alt without being used for some scam by somebody.  So I didn't.

Also, I don't really give much of a crap about XT vs. not XT at this point; when I did the math behind these "stress tests" and realized that someone is making a profit and so these stress tests will never ever stop, and saw that the community is effectively paralyzed on making the decision that is necessary to stop it, I gave up on you guys and sold all my bitcoins.  Hey, I made my 1500%.  Why get greedy? 

I don't have anything against the bitcoin community.  I just have no confidence at this point that you'll do what you need to do in time.   The issue is technical. All the responses to it are social and therefore meaningless.  There is too much arguing and denial and accusations and recriminations and FUD and calling each other FUDsters and so on, and not enough decisive action.   You don't have to hate New Orleans to see that they're not doing what they need to do about flood preparation, right?  And if people in New Orleans hate you for thinking they're not doing enough about flood preparation, that has absolutely no effect on  whether it's true or not. 

So, I no longer have a horse in the race.  Nobody's paying me, I'm not holding out for a price rise or fall, I don't have an alt in the market, nothing.  Sure, I'm disappointed.  I'd like to see Bitcoin succeed.  But when the block size decision got this political, it became very likely IMO that it won't.  The politics have become more important to the community than the underlying technical facts.

I'm still following along because I'm interested in it as a technology and as an example of how community dynamics and technology interact.  But in terms of input, all I'm doing is pointing out the facts.

The mathematical fact is that as long as the maximum block size is smaller than twice the number of "real" transactions that people will pay increased fees for, it costs less for a mining coalition to drive fees up by making bogus transactions, than the coalition can reap in increased fees.  (assuming the coalition is at least 38% of the mining power)  You don't have to take my word for it;  Do the math.

[hdbuck]

fork off cryddit.

go cry over at reddit

[Cryddit]

fork off cryddit.

Already did.  It makes me sad, but yes, I'm out of the market. 

[Hopalong]

CoinWallet.eu is shady anonymous individual ...

This is the true bitcoin spirit of anonymity and hiding from everyone when you do your shady business....

[MoorChael]

Maybe just false information.

[neochiny]

wew!!! i am the one who put this topic up.. but in the end i cant follow the conversation anymore.. i cant understand more of the things your talking about guys. can someone generalize to me what is really happening concerning about this? im just new in here.. and i think more of you here understand about this.. someone help me understand it?just a little bit.

[favdesu]

  i read this in ibtimes last day, i dont really understand about the backlog.will this affect our online wallets????it says,:
            "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".

just use a little higher tx fee and you're fine. also, I hope no one starts using this coinwallet service.

[BornBlazed]

I bet the BTC Price is going lower, have your money ready to buy on the dip.

[Carlton Banks]

  i read this in ibtimes last day, i dont really understand about the backlog.will this affect our online wallets????it says,:
            "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".

just use a little higher tx fee and you're fine. also, I hope no one starts using this coinwallet service.

The core developers have developed a patch to mitigate these attacks automatically. It will be available in Bitcoin Core 0.11.1 or 0.12, all being well.

[frenulum]

So is this "stress testing" going ahead in the coming days?

How will it affect Bitcoin price, if it causes disruption?

How will it affect the XT fork debate, if it causes disruption?

[RealMalatesta]

I'm wondering who ibtimes was really talking to. coinwallet is a fake "company". I tried numerous times to open an account with them - no e-mail was answered, no support, nothing. There are some leads to Russia, though, but this could be a coincidence...

[CohibAA]

I'm wondering who ibtimes was really talking to. coinwallet is a fake "company". I tried numerous times to open an account with them - no e-mail was answered, no support, nothing. There are some leads to Russia, though, but this could be a coincidence...

I was able to create an account, but there is no way I'm giving them any personal information.  I can login and view the wallet and stuff, though (referral link).  Do you mean you tried to go through their verification and didn't get a response?

[PolarPoint]

It's September soon, CoinWallet.eu is gearing up for "attack". Spokesperson said they will create 75000 transactions like this:
https://blockchain.info/tx/ce9abd5e1128631893b06e5bf705832cad6c103135463bddaa572c869fd4b11c

If so, we have nothing to fear. They are nearly 3k in size paying 0.0001btc fee, effective fee is 0.000033 btc/kb. We need to pay a "standard" 0.0001btc fee and our tx will go through. What does CoinWallet want to prove? They are burning their btc for nothing.

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

"Each of these transactions is for a total amount of 0.0002 BTC (including miner fees), meaning that with my 150 btc that is currently in this state, I will be crafting 750000 transactions, or 2321 blocks, or a 16 day backlog."

[ArticMine]

...

The mathematical fact is that as long as the maximum block size is smaller than twice the number of "real" transactions that people will pay increased fees for, it costs less for a mining coalition to drive fees up by making bogus transactions, than the coalition can reap in increased fees.  (assuming the coalition is at least 38% of the mining power)  You don't have to take my word for it;  Do the math.

This is a simple but revealing analysis. In fact this attack is favored even more as the ratio of "real" transactions to the fixed block limit increases.

[RealMalatesta]

I'm wondering who ibtimes was really talking to. coinwallet is a fake "company". I tried numerous times to open an account with them - no e-mail was answered, no support, nothing. There are some leads to Russia, though, but this could be a coincidence...

I was able to create an account, but there is no way I'm giving them any personal information.  I can login and view the wallet and stuff, though (referral link).  Do you mean you tried to go through their verification and didn't get a response?

Right. I was able to open several accounts. They offer to send them money through a bank wire. When I asked for the details: No response. With another account the same result. So yes, you can open an account, from then one, nothing more happens.

[ArticMine]

We already know what the issues are. I don't see the point of them wasting money and making lives more difficult than they need to be. Perhaps we should club together and stress test their wonderful service that'll save us all until it becomes unusable.

It is not that simple. Whether this attack is profitable or not depends on the ratio of real transactions to the blocksize limit and what percentage of the hashpower the attacker controls. Cryddit is on to something here.

[Cryddit]

The mathematical fact is that as long as the maximum block size is smaller than twice the number of "real" transactions that people will pay increased fees for, it costs less for a mining coalition to drive fees up by making bogus transactions, than the coalition can reap in increased fees.  (assuming the coalition is at least 38% of the mining power)  You don't have to take my word for it;  Do the math.

This is a simple but revealing analysis. In fact this attack is favored even more as the ratio of "real" transactions to the fixed block limit increases.

It's true that the expenses for mounting such an attack are smaller (hence reward greater) as real transactions become more numerous. 

Sadly, it is also true that the mining coalition can make more money than that by driving up fee prices to the point where people only fill half a block.

[ArticMine]

...

It's true that the expenses for mounting such an attack are smaller (hence reward greater) as real transactions become more numerous.  

Sadly, it is also true that the mining coalition can make more money than that by driving up fee prices to the point where people only fill half a block.

It may actually be a lot worse, since it would be profitable for other smaller miners to join the attack creating positive feedback. One would have to run simulations to get a proper handle on this. My instinct is that this could potentially spiral out of control where "fake" transactions dominate the mined blocks and only the most price resistant "real" transactions remain.

[Liquid71]

Lets call this "stress test" what it is, an attack on Bitcoin to promote an agenda.

In my case it backfired, I was all for bigger blocks without understanding what was really going on. When the newest attack was announced by "coinwallet" I read enough to see this was about more than bigger blocks and have changed my position.

If you need to resort to fear mongering like political hacks to prove your point then you already lost the debate.

[Liquid71]

Why would it be any more plausible that pro-Core miners are planning this than that pro-XT miners are? Both stand to gain equally from doing so, and both also stand to gain from firstly conducting the attack, then secondly blaming the other party to discredit them.

Ding!  It's all about the profit motive.  Regardless of whether the miners claim tobe Pro-XT or Pro-Core, some coalition of them is making money by doing these "stress tests" that won't work under XT. 

The fees only rise temporarily so their isn't an economic incentive for miners to attack the blockchain with spam