2015: The year of the stress test

[sgbett]

Is this the biggest mempool backlog ever recorded? It's gotten to the point that core devs started suggesting that node owners should set spam filters...

Of cource this particular piece of advice came from no one else rather than Luke-jr

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3nx7at/question_about_the_1gb_mempool_size_backlog/cvs404w

You should judge advice on merit. Not on preconceived ideas about the person delivering it. Spam filter could simply mean adjusting your mintxrelayfee, whilst I don't like the precedent that sets I would grudgingly agree that its a necessary evil until such time as the block size limit is increased to the point where attempting to DDoS is no longer cost effective.

I am sure other, more sophisticated methods for deciding on what constitutes spam will emerge as the need dictates. Free market at work.

[BitmoreCoin]

Bitcoin passed all the tests.

[worhiper_-_]

Is this the biggest mempool backlog ever recorded? It's gotten to the point that core devs started suggesting that node owners should set spam filters...

Of cource this particular piece of advice came from no one else rather than Luke-jr

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3nx7at/question_about_the_1gb_mempool_size_backlog/cvs404w

You should judge advice on merit. Not on preconceived ideas about the person delivering it. Spam filter could simply mean adjusting your mintxrelayfee, whilst I don't like the precedent that sets I would grudgingly agree that its a necessary evil until such time as the block size limit is increased to the point where attempting to DDoS is no longer cost effective.

I am sure other, more sophisticated methods for deciding on what constitutes spam will emerge as the need dictates. Free market at work.

I was joking when 'judging' this idea. I think that filtering transactions sounds good in theory to be honest, it's usefulness would mostly benefit the individual using the filter unless it was widely adobted. I could think of arguements agest it being used as default though.

[pinger]

You should ask Amaclin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=197593 about this.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1198032.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1166928.0

[worhiper_-_]

You should ask Amaclin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=197593 about this.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1198032.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1166928.0

Is amaclin's "Cheap way to attack blockchain" what's currently used to stress test bitcoin?

[pinger]

Is what he say on that posts.

[Quantus]

Its the miners they are testing ways to create backlog so they can make more money in fees.
I made a thread about it some time ago.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1116899.0

The highest backlog was around 200k

They wish to study the correlation between backlog/wait-time and higher fees to better understand how they can sap more money out of users.

[worhiper_-_]

Its the miners they are testing ways to create backlog so they can make more money in fees.

That doesn't make much sense. Do you think that this is what's going on this time too?

[Quantus]

Its the miners they are testing ways to create backlog so they can make more money in fees.

That doesn't make much sense. Do you think that this is what's going on this time too?

No way to know for sure but its my guess they are looking for a sweet spot. A place wherein they only drive out dust transactions and maybe micro transactions while still making more money then they spend on spam.

[Meuh6879]

good point.

---

set a restriction to 0,0001 in minrelaytxfee now.

[neonshium]

Its the miners they are testing ways to create backlog so they can make more money in fees.

That doesn't make much sense. Do you think that this is what's going on this time too?

No way to know for sure but its my guess they are looking for a sweet spot. A place wherein they only drive out dust transactions and maybe micro transactions while still making more money then they spend on spam.

If miners are doing it willfully means that would be another stress test. We need to code bitcoin accordingly. In a free world anybody can do anything at their own wish, but only the versatile things stands out. We need to thank them for conducting test with their own money.

[notbatman]

Well if they are stress testing attacking I can't see any effect at all on my node. Latency is currently at a 7 day low, hash rate and miner temp unaffected, pool is running smoothly.

[Kprawn]

Whoever they are {Bigger block size supporters / Miners / People trying to sabotage Bitcoin} ...It's getting old very quickly. They seem to have a lot of money to burn on rubbish

stress testing and it's probably a waste of time anyways. Satoshi decided on these smaller block sizes deliberately to prevent spam attacks.. and now people are pushing for it.

Just get over it, and leave the network to sort it self out with natural incremental increases of the block sizes.   

[Quantus]

Whoever they are {Bigger block size supporters / Miners / People trying to sabotage Bitcoin} ...It's getting old very quickly. They seem to have a lot of money to burn on rubbish

stress testing and it's probably a waste of time anyways. Satoshi decided on these smaller block sizes deliberately to prevent spam attacks.. and now people are pushing for it.

Just get over it, and leave the network to sort it self out with natural incremental increases of the block sizes.  

Wut?

Umm... Anyway the bottom line is the network will be fine. Weaker nodes like the raspberry pi's and old computers' may crash or run out of Ram forcing them to use disk space thus slowing them down and potentially increasing propagation time accross the network, leading to a more fractured network and more orphaned blocks causing even more bloat on full nodes that have to store all these orphaned blocks but having said all that everything will be fine. Really!  

[~Bitcoin~]

There is rule of existence,
"survival of the fittest/strongest"
If bitcoin is stronger than those attack, it will survive like it is doing till now. I don't think this type of silly attempts will down this highly secured blockchain network.

[Ayle56]

Whoever they are {Bigger block size supporters / Miners / People trying to sabotage Bitcoin} ...It's getting old very quickly. They seem to have a lot of money to burn on rubbish

stress testing and it's probably a waste of time anyways. Satoshi decided on these smaller block sizes deliberately to prevent spam attacks.. and now people are pushing for it.

Just get over it, and leave the network to sort it self out with natural incremental increases of the block sizes.  

Wut?

Umm... Anyway the bottom line is the network will be fine. Weaker nodes like the raspberry pi's and old computers' may crash or run out of Ram forcing them to use disk space thus slowing them down and potentially increasing propagation time accross the network, leading to a more fractured network and more orphaned blocks causing even more bloat on full nodes that have to store all these orphaned blocks but having said all that everything will be fine. Really!  

What's the maximum amount of RAM a top of the range node is likely to be capable of having? I have seen bog standard computers with 8GB, but servers are designed to allow a much higher maximum, if needed. I'm not familiar with the maximum top of the range ASICs can use, or if they are designed like servers so their RAM can be upgraded to a very high amount.

[Quantus]

Whoever they are {Bigger block size supporters / Miners / People trying to sabotage Bitcoin} ...It's getting old very quickly. They seem to have a lot of money to burn on rubbish

stress testing and it's probably a waste of time anyways. Satoshi decided on these smaller block sizes deliberately to prevent spam attacks.. and now people are pushing for it.

Just get over it, and leave the network to sort it self out with natural incremental increases of the block sizes.  

Wut?

Umm... Anyway the bottom line is the network will be fine. Weaker nodes like the raspberry pi's and old computers' may crash or run out of Ram forcing them to use disk space thus slowing them down and potentially increasing propagation time accross the network, leading to a more fractured network and more orphaned blocks causing even more bloat on full nodes that have to store all these orphaned blocks but having said all that everything will be fine. Really!  

What's the maximum amount of RAM a top of the range node is likely to be capable of having? I have seen bog standard computers with 8GB, but servers are designed to allow a much higher maximum, if needed. I'm not familiar with the maximum top of the range ASICs can use, or if they are designed like servers so their RAM can be upgraded to a very high amount.

First off, ASICs are used in mining, as far as I know they don't even have RAM they are used in mining-Rigs not full-nodes. The only real issue here are those nodes hosted on laptops made in the 90s and the first Raspberry pi's (250 to 500mb of RAM.) To your question; how much RAM dose the average high end node have? I don't know, I don't know how many nodes run on the network or what kind of hardware they have. I would love to hear the opinions of a p2p network specialist on the block size issue. 

[amiryaqot]

Bitcoin passed all the tests.

Well that is true BTCitcoin passed the all test and now growing more rapidly than before and it has more positive signals about it bright future, i think now it is ready to go to the mainstream.

[tradoz]

Bitcoin passed all the tests.

Well that is true BTCitcoin passed the all test and now growing more rapidly than before and it has more positive signals about it bright future, i think now it is ready to go to the mainstream.

Agreed with you now bitcoin more stable after this all stress test and getting more attention from bigger investors as Gemini is about open it doors for this morning.

[amaclin]

You should ask Amaclin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=197593 about this.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1198032.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1166928.0

Is amaclin's "Cheap way to attack blockchain" what's currently used to stress test bitcoin?

no