December 2015 "Fastest Crypto" Bake-Off (topic locked)

[monsterer]

You must be confusing ZeroTime with instantX because your missing allot here and barely touching the basics of the technology. Also "visually crediting" is inaccurate, it is a core layer consensus based confirmation.

Describe the differences between instantX and zerotime from an attack cost perspective?

[traumschiff]

Yea, I don't know a whole lot about Vanillacoin, but I'm pretty sure it's just taking a Bitcoin 0 conf transaction and using a locking mechanism (which may or may not have security issues) to just visually credit your account faster.  The transactions all still have to be put in a block if you're using a blockchain system...you didn't just gain infinite TPS from nothing.  All PoS systems that don't die will eventually switch to deterministic block validation anyway, thus making that 0 time thing irrelevant.

You must be confusing ZeroTime with instantX because your missing allot here and barely touching the basics of the technology. Also "visually crediting" is inaccurate, it is a core layer consensus based confirmation. I often perform ~5100 TPS stress tests with no back-log. I see no reason to switch to deterministic block validation since this is well under capacity.

Thank you for your support.

Well, he did start the sentence with

I don't know a whole lot about Vanillacoin

so it's again just the usual jumping on the 22nd thread and stating the same without doing research.

[binarygangster]

who needs research when we can just assume willy nilly...

[patmast3r]

who needs research when we can just assume willy nilly...

You mean like all the VNL shills assume that zerotime is actually safe ?
It very well may be, I'm not saying it's not. It's just it seems to me that most people who follow VNL aren't all that well versed and just believe whatever john-connor throws at them.

[traumschiff]

who needs research when we can just assume willy nilly...

You mean like all the VNL shills assume that zerotime is actually safe ?
It very well may be, I'm not saying it's not. It's just it seems to me that most people who follow VNL aren't all that well versed and just believe whatever john-connor throws at them.

That's generally true for most bitcointalk members, not only for the followers of XY project and it also has nothing to do with the current topic. The starting point here was r0ach and his statement which he started with him admitting that he didn't even research it thus your argument is just as invalid as in a past thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1170906.msg12358760#msg12358760) where you stated Poloniex doesn't do code audits just because your coin was never audited.

Let's stay on-topic though.

[PirateChain]

A clear sock puppet account wakes up and wants to do a neutral test.  Sure...... that doesn't look suspicious at all.

[patmast3r]

who needs research when we can just assume willy nilly...

You mean like all the VNL shills assume that zerotime is actually safe ?
It very well may be, I'm not saying it's not. It's just it seems to me that most people who follow VNL aren't all that well versed and just believe whatever john-connor throws at them.

That's generally true for most bitcointalk members, not only for the followers of XY project and it also has nothing to do with the current topic. The starting point here was r0ach and his statement which he started with him admitting that he didn't even research it thus your argument is just as invalid as in a past thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1170906.msg12358760#msg12358760) where you stated Poloniex doesn't do code audits just because your coin was never audited.

I have no coin. If you are refering to the only project I was ever involved in then you're wrong because that was audited by poloniex which is where i had the information from (as I told you in the other thread).

[hughbt]

who needs research when we can just assume willy nilly...

You mean like all the VNL shills assume that zerotime is actually safe ?
It very well may be, I'm not saying it's not. It's just it seems to me that most people who follow VNL aren't all that well versed and just believe whatever john-connor throws at them.

You can say that about every coin and every community because people believe to what developers say. But you can check vnl's code and try to hack it. Apparently - easier said than done.
Your post proves how easy it is to manipulate people. Why anyone should believe you, or me? I would rather believe a skilled person, who can deliever the technology(and it works), rather than some random guy at forum who can't programm.

[patmast3r]

who needs research when we can just assume willy nilly...

You mean like all the VNL shills assume that zerotime is actually safe ?
It very well may be, I'm not saying it's not. It's just it seems to me that most people who follow VNL aren't all that well versed and just believe whatever john-connor throws at them.

You can say that about every coin and every community because people believe to what developers say. But you can check vnl's code and try to hack it. Apparently - easier said than done.
Your post proves how easy it is to manipulate people. Why anyone should believe you, or me? I would rather believe a skilled person, who can deliever the technology(and it works), rather than some random guy at forum who can't programm.

Indeed you can. I just used VNL as an example because binarygangster seemed to be supportive of it.
I would rather believe a skilled person as well. How do you recognise such a skilled person on this forum ?

[monsterer]

Your post proves how easy it is to manipulate people.

Your definition of 'manipulate' is broken.

[Nasakiotoes]

I'd like to inject a real speedster to the conversation. A bit coin merge mined coin.

GeistGeld (XGG) which shows us the bleeding edge of how fast blocks can be, and is so darn fast it might even need slowing down, unless maybe we are just waiting for hardware to catch up or something;

-MarkM-

[traumschiff]

who needs research when we can just assume willy nilly...

You mean like all the VNL shills assume that zerotime is actually safe ?
It very well may be, I'm not saying it's not. It's just it seems to me that most people who follow VNL aren't all that well versed and just believe whatever john-connor throws at them.

That's generally true for most bitcointalk members, not only for the followers of XY project and it also has nothing to do with the current topic. The starting point here was r0ach and his statement which he started with him admitting that he didn't even research it thus your argument is just as invalid as in a past thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1170906.msg12358760#msg12358760) where you stated Poloniex doesn't do code audits just because your coin was never audited.

I have no coin. If you are refering to the only project I was ever involved in then you're wrong because that was audited by poloniex which is where i had the information from (as I told you in the other thread).

You told me what I'm saying is not accurate because your project/code was only scanned for malware, read back the thread mate

[patmast3r]

who needs research when we can just assume willy nilly...

You mean like all the VNL shills assume that zerotime is actually safe ?
It very well may be, I'm not saying it's not. It's just it seems to me that most people who follow VNL aren't all that well versed and just believe whatever john-connor throws at them.

That's generally true for most bitcointalk members, not only for the followers of XY project and it also has nothing to do with the current topic. The starting point here was r0ach and his statement which he started with him admitting that he didn't even research it thus your argument is just as invalid as in a past thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1170906.msg12358760#msg12358760) where you stated Poloniex doesn't do code audits just because your coin was never audited.

I have no coin. If you are refering to the only project I was ever involved in then you're wrong because that was audited by poloniex which is where i had the information from (as I told you in the other thread).

You told me what I'm saying is not accurate because your project/code was only scanned for malware, read back the thread mate

All I said was, that I'm assuming that they're only scanning for malware because that's what someone from poloniex told me. They also told me that because they sometimes can't scan for maleware they run those in VMs (which wouldn't protect against faulty algo now would it ?). I didn't state it as fact.
I'm still of that opinion btw. Let's just agree to disagree and move on. K mate ? 

[hughbt]

who needs research when we can just assume willy nilly...

You mean like all the VNL shills assume that zerotime is actually safe ?
It very well may be, I'm not saying it's not. It's just it seems to me that most people who follow VNL aren't all that well versed and just believe whatever john-connor throws at them.

You can say that about every coin and every community because people believe to what developers say. But you can check vnl's code and try to hack it. Apparently - easier said than done.
Your post proves how easy it is to manipulate people. Why anyone should believe you, or me? I would rather believe a skilled person, who can deliever the technology(and it works), rather than some random guy at forum who can't programm.

Indeed you can. I just used VNL as an example because binarygangster seemed to be supportive of it.
I would rather believe a skilled person as well. How do you recognise such a skilled person on this forum ?

On this forum? It's a reasonable thing to not listen to people on this forum. But when the new ANN topic pops out and you are an investor you are going to make a decision - you are in or out. And when you saw a lot of Legendary and Hero Members spamming other coins topics, trying to hurt other coins because they have their own agenda you can't really trust no one. If I see the dev who delivered innovative, one of a kind tech, who should I trust? The developer or some random guy(even with a legendary rank) at the forum? If this tech was reviewed and clearly works very well it's a no-brainer.

But ok, I don't want to argue, because it's off-topic. Let the best crypto win.

[Fuserleer]

Does anyone want to challenge eMunie's claim in this bake-off?  BitShares' Stan/Dan?  Come-from-Beyond?

I need numbers for payments-only performance of eMunie then.

I'm not sure what you mean by payments-only, isn't that all this test is going to do?  We cant turn off all the additional transactional features in order to achieve higher throughput, nor would I want to.  Other projects may wish to do that, but I want to have a near as possible production eMunie configuration so that its a truer test of what real world performance can be.

Anyway, for this "bake-off" eMunie will most likely run in a single partition configuration as there is still some final work and testing to do in order to operate a multi-partition network.  If the bake-off date is indeed moved though, we should be at a point where a multi-partition network could be configured.

With the machine specs outlined in the OP, and a single partition config, eMunie should be able to easily sustain 200-300 tx/s across 20 nodes for 100 minutes.  Taking the average of 250 tx/s, our test result should be somewhere around 1.5M transactions after 100 minutes.  If the OP wants decides to do peak testing too, 3-5k tx/s should be possible over a short duration, but this bake-off really needs sustained load capability, as the final transaction count is what matter.

If we are at a stage where we can operate a multi-partition network, then that throughput greatly increases up to an order of 10x for 20 partitions!

From another thread, relevant here.

[bitcoin carpenter]

So who is winning so far?

Could we get a tally of claimed tps
And a tally of tested tps for projects?

[Fuserleer]

So who is winning so far?

Could we get a tally of claimed tps
And a tally of tested tps for projects?

The bake-off hasn't started yet, so there are no "official" results from the OP.

We had a beta test about a week ago where we achieved a 2400 tps peak - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1191535.0  Theres another beta scheduled soon, and amongst other things we'll be doing further load testing with high throughput, we should see 5000 tps peaks and 500 tps sustained easily.

Bitshares have done some stress testing too over the last week or so, IIRC they achieved a peak of ~1200+ tps but ran into some issues they need to solve - https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,18684.0.html - I've no idea what Bitshares can reliably sustain though, as they've dialed the test net back to concentrate on functionality testing.

Other than that, there isn't much else that has done stress tests in a verifiable environment.  Lots of claims of x thousand tps from developers and project supporters, but nothing to back up these claims really other than hear say and developer lab testing.

[wingspan]

...

Besides the sarcasm, any thoughts on easy ways to make my test fairer?  I think I'll add a step where I try to measure peak performance - maybe after the three 100-minute tests assuming all nodes are still in sync.  Also, I am thinking I should run the network after the third test and after the peak test for 24 hours - or until the network breaks (3 of 20 nodes fall out of sync for more than an hour) - to test that capacity.  Anything else I should add to the main 100-minute tests?

BTW, I'm "wingspan" on the eMunie forum...if you wish to see my history of posts there, and pic. I live in the Pacific timezone not too far from Seattle.

[wingspan]

I thought it was sarcasm.  I really don't know you.  When you said: "e-munie - faster than the fastest crypto on the planet!" I figured the misspelling of eMunie and the hyperbole was a sign you didn't like it.  That's all.

[Fuserleer]

it's all good... While we were busy fighting over which free public crypto has the biggest pecker (and distracting our brothers), we all became criminals.. nice knowing ya

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-08/how-tpp-could-lead-worldwide-internet-censorship

The fact that you have time to spend on "bad grammer" means that you are indeed in the wealthiest 1% of all humans on earth.  Enjoy that internet while it lasts..

For what its worth your comment warmed my heart