Stress test.. What's going to happen?

[sniveling]

i think people are going to start sending less and less transactions,or send with high fees. I'd feel pretty bad if a transaction i sent got stuck in the blockchain. 

The tiny transactions that it's not worth paying high fees on will be severely delayed. If they come to you from a service that decides what fee to pay, if any, you will probably have to wait until long after the stress test is over to receive your coin. Transactions sent without fees are likely to sit in the mempool until after the whole test is over and the mempool backlog is cleared.

[DannyHamilton]

Sure but the reality is also this: It will be impossible for everybody to pay enough fees at the same time to get their transactions included in the next block simply because there isn't enough room for everybody.

There will be delays no matter how smart people are trying to manage the fees.

If by "everybody" you mean all the transactions (including the "stress test transactions"), then you are correct.

However, it is certainly possible for people to pay a higher transaction fee (per kilobyte) than the "stress test" is paying.  If they do that, then their transaction will almost certainly be included in the next block or two, while the "stress test" transactions will have to wait until there is room for them.

If someone can't afford to pay a higher fee (per kilobyte) than the stress test is paying, then they'll just have to wait or use something other than bitcoin.

[Meuh6879]

and 0.11.0 do exactly this  ... when you use "recommended fees" WITHOUT THE CROSS in "emit with zero fees".

bitcoin core handle stress test without any other setting.

if you pay the fees, the transaction can pass above.

[knight22]

Sure but the reality is also this: It will be impossible for everybody to pay enough fees at the same time to get their transactions included in the next block simply because there isn't enough room for everybody.

There will be delays no matter how smart people are trying to manage the fees.

If by "everybody" you mean all the transactions (including the "stress test transactions"), then you are correct.

However, it is certainly possible for people to pay a higher transaction fee (per kilobyte) than the "stress test" is paying.  If they do that, then their transaction will almost certainly be included in the next block or two, while the "stress test" transactions will have to wait until there is room for them.

If someone can't afford to pay a higher fee (per kilobyte) than the stress test is paying, then they'll just have to wait or use something other than bitcoin.

Yes this is what I meant but it will also perfectly simulate how the network/market will react under real heavy load traffic.

[knight22]

and 0.11.0 do exactly this   ... when you use "recommended fees" WITHOUT THE CROSS in "emit with zero fees".

bitcoin core handle stress test without any other setting.

if you pay the fees, the transaction can pass above.

Everyone CAN'T pay the fees to pass above, only SOME. Which is clearly a problem.

[Meuh6879]

oh please ... normal fees 0,02 mBTC and with the stress test from july/august ? ====> 0,1 mBTC


2 cents. 

[stuff0577]

Stressed man,I be stresssed!!

Time frame for this?

Planned to take action on sept, 10. They didn't tell how long it will occur but they are aiming 30 days of backlog transaction.

Thanks.

I did not really get to much disturbance the last time,so hopefully about the same this time. Fingers crossed.

Yeah hopefully it will not do interruption regarding the confirmation

[knight22]

oh please ... normal fees 0,02 mBTC and with the stress test from july/august ? ====> 0,1 mBTC


2 cents. 

Of course those rates aren't problematic but at some point it will.

[marky89]

oh please ... normal fees 0,02 mBTC and with the stress test from july/august ? ====> 0,1 mBTC


2 cents. 

Of course those rates aren't problematic but at some point it will.

That may be true at some point. However, it is dangerous to make grand assumptions about how adoption, transaction growth and miners' incentives will look 5, 10, 20 years into the future. We simply cannot know, and heretofore unconsidered incentives and/or centralizing trends may occur in the future. Thus, the most responsible way to deal with capacity is incrementally, with consideration for maintaining incentives that favor security.

[knight22]

oh please ... normal fees 0,02 mBTC and with the stress test from july/august ? ====> 0,1 mBTC


2 cents.  

Of course those rates aren't problematic but at some point it will.

That may be true at some point. However, it is dangerous to make grand assumptions about how adoption, transaction growth and miners' incentives will look 5, 10, 20 years into the future. We simply cannot know, and heretofore unconsidered incentives and/or centralizing trends may occur in the future. Thus, the most responsible way to deal with capacity is incrementally, with consideration for maintaining incentives that favor security.

That's sounds like a nice approach but only IF hardforking and achieving consensus would be easy and it doesn't seem to be the case actually...

Why not just let it go and have a wait and see approach? Only use a hard fork if things seems to go problematic.

[marky89]

oh please ... normal fees 0,02 mBTC and with the stress test from july/august ? ====> 0,1 mBTC


2 cents.  

Of course those rates aren't problematic but at some point it will.

That may be true at some point. However, it is dangerous to make grand assumptions about how adoption, transaction growth and miners' incentives will look 5, 10, 20 years into the future. We simply cannot know, and heretofore unconsidered incentives and/or centralizing trends may occur in the future. Thus, the most responsible way to deal with capacity is incrementally, with consideration for maintaining incentives that favor security.

That's sounds like a nice approach but only IF hardforking and achieving consensus would be easy and it doesn't seem to be the case actually...

Why not just let it go and have a wait and see approach? Only use a hard fork if things seems to go problematic.

I'll throw that right back at ya.

Why not take a "wait and see" approach to capacity, incrementally increasing capacity as needed? Rather than making arbitrary assumptions about capacity that we may or may not need far into the future?

Implementing a hard fork on the basis of consensus shouldn't be easy, as it puts all users at risk.

[knight22]

oh please ... normal fees 0,02 mBTC and with the stress test from july/august ? ====> 0,1 mBTC


2 cents.  

Of course those rates aren't problematic but at some point it will.

That may be true at some point. However, it is dangerous to make grand assumptions about how adoption, transaction growth and miners' incentives will look 5, 10, 20 years into the future. We simply cannot know, and heretofore unconsidered incentives and/or centralizing trends may occur in the future. Thus, the most responsible way to deal with capacity is incrementally, with consideration for maintaining incentives that favor security.

That's sounds like a nice approach but only IF hardforking and achieving consensus would be easy and it doesn't seem to be the case actually...

Why not just let it go and have a wait and see approach? Only use a hard fork if things seems to go problematic.

I'll throw that right back at ya.

Why not take a "wait and see" approach to capacity, incrementally increasing capacity as needed? Rather than making arbitrary assumptions about capacity that we may or may not need far into the future?

Implementing a hard fork on the basis of consensus shouldn't be easy, as it puts all users at risk.

Well, this is pretty much the direction we are heading right now and probably the reason behind these stress tests.

Imagine you are a big player that have made up capacity previsions and want to bring up new influx of users with mass marketing campaing but can't do it before the system scale enough or otherwise you would just lose your money. At this point what would you do? Personally I would stress test the system to make shit hits the fan forcing the system to scale before your anticipated influx of users rather than after.

It is pure speculation but from a big business perspective it makes a lot of sense and I think this is what actually going on. Otherwise it would makes no sense to invest so much money bloating the system just for the lulz.

[marky89]

But technical matters that affect network security can't be determined by the mere possibility that a corporation might make a marketing push, which might result in increased adoption. That is simply too far removed from reality. If we are averaging 400 kB, it seems like more than doubling transaction volume would be quite a feat in and of itself. Why don't we start with that?

[knight22]

But technical matters that affect network security can't be determined by the mere possibility that a corporation might make a marketing push, which might result in increased adoption. That is simply too far removed from reality. If we are averaging 400 kB, it seems like more than doubling transaction volume would be quite a feat in and of itself. Why don't we start with that?

We can. However if what I said is right, we can only expect these stress tests to occur more often and amplifying each time. Big businesses know how to make things happen if they need so.

Personally I don't have any problem with this approach so I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

[adamstgBit]

But technical matters that affect network security can't be determined by the mere possibility that a corporation might make a marketing push, which might result in increased adoption. That is simply too far removed from reality. If we are averaging 400 kB, it seems like more than doubling transaction volume would be quite a feat in and of itself. Why don't we start with that?

look at the last 6 block mined
https://blockchain.info/
there all like 700-900KB
full blocks! and lots of them!
how many poeple needed to wait an extra 10-20mins for there TX to get confirmed, before we up the limit?
i think at this point waiting an extra 10-20mins for all 6 confirmations is a given
where do you draw the line?