September Stress Test Schedule 30 Day Backlog

[Dire]

I've not seen this mentioned on the boards but if it has been, feel free to get it merged.

I just came across this article that says CoinWallet will be f***ing around with the network this September. To be quite honest, I at first thought it was satire. I mean, why would you alienate so many potential customers? I certainly won't ever be using them now.

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

Here are a few (f***ing unbelievable) quotes from a CoinWallet representative:

"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."

and for there next trick,

"These 20 servers push approximately 1 transaction per second. The plan is to fill them up to 50-100 Bitcoin in total. In theory, if all things go as planned, we will create a nearly 30-day backlog."

But apparently you shouldn't worry, because...

"Of course, this won't cripple Bitcoin entirely. Those who are smart enough to increase their fees will still manage to push transactions through. However, it will make it prohibitively expensive, and will likely render most standard wallet software, ranging from Multibit, to Mycellium, Blockchain.info and others completely worthless."

They do have some XT reasoning at the bottom of the article, but it looks like an afterthought excuse if you ask me, and even if they did have a good reason, they don't have the right to affect the whole system.

[meono]

They dont need your permission to do this. If the system cant handle it, too bad. Go cry your mama a river.

What is this with " right to do" bs?

[NorrisK]

There was another thread on this somewhere. The stress testing is a way to test the bitcoin network future transaction load and what will happen to the fees.

Remember, higher fees gets your transaction passed faster, but on higher btc prices this may mean that you are paying the same for transactions as with current fiat methods.

[Dire]

They dont need your permission to do this. If the system cant handle it, too bad. Go cry your mama a river.

What is this with " right to do" bs?

My mothers dead you wanker. Go fuck yourself.

[findftp]

they don't have the right to affect the whole system.

I want them to fuck this system to the core.
Hack it, abuse it, fuck it to the max.

This system is only worth something when it survives everything.

For anything else there is paypal and friends.

[tonycamp]

money in digital goods can supress the stress in bad mode even into the wallet its a nervouse psicological thing soo the more money you have the lesses stressed no?
check out love stress lol.

[Carlton Banks]

they don't have the right to affect the whole system.

I want them to fuck this system to the core.
Hack it, abuse it, fuck it to the max.

This system is only worth something when it survives everything.

For anything else there is paypal and friends.

+1

If it can't be killed (for the umpteenth time again...), it will grow stronger

[Kazimir]

"Each of these transactions is for a total amount of 0.0002 BTC (including miner fees)

1. If they are sending 0.0002 BTC including miner fee, that means that if you send your regular transactions with a 0.0002 BTC fee (and probably even less, like 0.0001 BTC which is pretty common) then you will hardly notice any trouble at all.

2. For the vast majority of transactions, it doesn't matter whether it gets confirmed within 10 minutes, or if it takes a couple of hours or even days (although the latter is extremely rare).

So, no reason to worry. People can waste money on 'spamming' all they want. It'll be a nice bonus for the miners. Move along folks, nothing to see.

[JackH]

This is just a spam attack, and nothing but that. Increase your fee's slightly and you wont feel a thing. If they had to perform a "real" attack it would cost them millions as they would have to outbid everyone else. What they do is raise the fee's from absolute zero to a couple of cents. Hardly a disturbance.

And if SPV clients are not capable of allowing people to set fee's and give them a realistic block inclusion time, the problem is NOT with Bitcoin's network, it is with the third party implementations.

[dothebeats]

The heavy load of transaction would probably raise the fees for transactions to get your transactions in. Raise the block size to avoid this or pay a higher fee to get your transaction through. This is a mess.

[Carlton Banks]

And if SPV clients are not capable of allowing people to set fee's and give them a realistic block inclusion time, the problem is NOT with Bitcoin's network, it is with the third party implementations.

Someone should let Andreas Schildbach know really, his Bitcoin Wallet app on Android is the best mobile wallet there is. It needs that improvement though.

Edit: looking at his github, it looks like fee/kB might already be in place when using "priority" mode, but this doesn't take account of the other priority rules enforced on the network I don't think

[JackH]

The heavy load of transaction would probably raise the fees for transactions to get your transactions in. Raise the block size to avoid this or pay a higher fee to get your transaction through. This is a mess.

Bitcoin has always had this dilemma. Since we are all hoping for a worldwide adoption, or at least higher than current use, we can only expect the tx count to go up as more will use Bitcoin.

BUT - do we really need or want every corner store purchase to be stored on the blockchain? Are we really seriously going to use a core, a protocol to store insane amount of useless information? This should be handled by third party services, via level-2 implementations and not mining confirmations.

Its blindly insane that people cant realize what it means to scale the blocks. Do we really really need our nodes to verify that grandma purchased 2 bottles of water? No thank you, this we will leave to the payment processors to clear off.

[dothebeats]

The heavy load of transaction would probably raise the fees for transactions to get your transactions in. Raise the block size to avoid this or pay a higher fee to get your transaction through. This is a mess.

Bitcoin has always had this dilemma. Since we are all hoping for a worldwide adoption, or at least higher than current use, we can only expect the tx count to go up as more will use Bitcoin.

BUT - do we really need or want every corner store purchase to be stored on the blockchain? Are we really seriously going to use a core, a protocol to store insane amount of useless information? This should be handled by third party services, via level-2 implementations and not mining confirmations.

Its blindly insane that people cant realize what it means to scale the blocks. Do we really really need our nodes to verify that grandma purchased 2 bottles of water? No thank you, this we will leave to the payment processors to clear off.

So what would be your proposal on this matter? Lightning networks? Side chains?

[JackH]

Lightning network, that gets incorporated into the payment gateways.

I think we at some point should raise the blocksize slightly, to ensure that we do not kill off the priority transactions. Actually the priority transactions in my world are the P2P ones, not the purchase of Coca Cola. It is the B2B and the P2P transactions we all love to have that I want to keep.

But I think it is silly to increase the blocksize because Bitpay and Coinbase are too lazy to implement level-2 functionality for their clearing. From their point of view, the easiest route is to dump all the transactions, irrespective of what they are, into the blocks and let miners and nodes deal with it. No thank you.

[ashour]

I've not seen this mentioned on the boards but if it has been, feel free to get it merged.

I just came across this article that says CoinWallet will be f***ing around with the network this September. To be quite honest, I at first thought it was satire. I mean, why would you alienate so many potential customers? I certainly won't ever be using them now.

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

Here are a few (f***ing unbelievable) quotes from a CoinWallet representative:

"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."

and for there next trick,

"These 20 servers push approximately 1 transaction per second. The plan is to fill them up to 50-100 Bitcoin in total. In theory, if all things go as planned, we will create a nearly 30-day backlog."

But apparently you shouldn't worry, because...

"Of course, this won't cripple Bitcoin entirely. Those who are smart enough to increase their fees will still manage to push transactions through. However, it will make it prohibitively expensive, and will likely render most standard wallet software, ranging from Multibit, to Mycellium, Blockchain.info and others completely worthless."

They do have some XT reasoning at the bottom of the article, but it looks like an afterthought excuse if you ask me, and even if they did have a good reason, they don't have the right to affect the whole system.

They don't  need a "right" to stress test the network. If the network can't  handle it then bitcoin would be worthless. These tests are necessary to determinate if the bitcoin network can handle huge transactions volumes in the future.

[Mickeyb]

Well it seems unbelievable that they are willing to spend 150 BTCs. That's a lot of money. If they do it after all, this might finally persuade freaking core people that bigger blocks are necessity.

As for them doing it, who are we to b**ch about it. Bitcoin network is a free system and anybody in this world can be using it. At least this is how we market it and present it.

Very interesting if you ask me!

[fairglu]

They do have some XT reasoning at the bottom of the article, but it looks like an afterthought excuse if you ask me, and even if they did have a good reason, they don't have the right to affect the whole system.

If one guy can create 30 days of backlog with 1 MB blocks, then what's to prevent other guys from creation 30 days of backlog with 8 MB blocks?

Nothing.

In the end we will just have 30 x (1 + MB x 24 x 6 = 38 GB of garbage in the blockchain forever.

Which probably means that what's needed is not bigger blocks, it's pruning.
At some point the old blockchain data needs to be forgotten.

[Dire]

They don't  need a "right" to stress test the network. If the network can't  handle it then bitcoin would be worthless. These tests are necessary to determinate if the bitcoin network can handle huge transactions volumes in the future.

Well, that's a perfectly valid opinion. I don't agree with it though, simply because it may possibly affect a lot of people adversely, and the tone of that rep in the article was along the lines of 'screw everyone else'.

I'm not against larger blocks, I just don't agree with this kind of action particularly. If they know it's going to cause problems - which they've stated they do - then it's not a test then, is it. In which case, what's the point/benefit?

[fairglu]

Well it seems unbelievable that they are willing to spend 150 BTCs. That's a lot of money

They're not spending 150 BTC, they're shuffling 150 BTC across their addresses. They will lose only the fees of that shuffling, much, much less than 150 BTC.

Basically they're spamming the blockchain with the equivalent  of "put it there", "no here", "uh split it there and there", "now regroup it here"

[coinpr0n]

They don't  need a "right" to stress test the network. If the network can't  handle it then bitcoin would be worthless. These tests are necessary to determinate if the bitcoin network can handle huge transactions volumes in the future.

Well, that's a perfectly valid opinion. I don't agree with it though, simply because it may possibly affect a lot of people adversely, and the tone of that rep in the article was along the lines of 'screw everyone else'.

I'm not against larger blocks, I just don't agree with this kind of action particularly. If they know it's going to cause problems - which they've stated they do - then it's not a test then, is it. In which case, what's the point/benefit?

It's called marketing. They supposedly have a wallet (no one uses) that calculates fees correctly and gets transaction into the next block. Either that or it's all BS and they're working for someone else behind this guise (heheh).