The stress was very weak, unfortunately. From this plot:
Estimated network capacity: 85 kB/min
Typical input tx rate before test: 30--50 kB/min
Typical queue size before test: 300--600 kB
Peak input tx rate during test: 126 kB/min (~3x normal, ~50% over capacity)
Peak queue sizes during peak test: 12 MB (14:00), 14 MB (21:30)
Sustained input tx rate for several hours after peak: 70-100 kB/min
Methink the test was necessary for people to pay attention to the problem.
The test showed that even a small player can create a large backlog with modest expense.
It showed that when the input transaction rate is close to the network capacity, even a small increase in that rate can create a huge backlog. Between 18:00 and 21:30, when the input rate increased from ~75 kB/min to ~112 kB/min (a 50% increase), the queue grew from ~3 MB to ~14 MB (a 370% increase).
The previous stress test (on a late friday night) used only free transactions, so the fee-paying transactions were delayed only slightly. This one used fee-paying transactions: it will be interesting to see how it affected the ordinary fee-paying transactions.
Estimated network capacity: 85 kB/min
Typical input tx rate before test: 30--50 kB/min
Typical queue size before test: 300--600 kB
Peak input tx rate during test: 126 kB/min (~3x normal, ~50% over capacity)
Peak queue sizes during peak test: 12 MB (14:00), 14 MB (21:30)
Sustained input tx rate for several hours after peak: 70-100 kB/min
Methink the test was necessary for people to pay attention to the problem.
The test showed that even a small player can create a large backlog with modest expense.
It showed that when the input transaction rate is close to the network capacity, even a small increase in that rate can create a huge backlog. Between 18:00 and 21:30, when the input rate increased from ~75 kB/min to ~112 kB/min (a 50% increase), the queue grew from ~3 MB to ~14 MB (a 370% increase).
The previous stress test (on a late friday night) used only free transactions, so the fee-paying transactions were delayed only slightly. This one used fee-paying transactions: it will be interesting to see how it affected the ordinary fee-paying transactions.
Do you know if there's a way to see what fee they paid? Was it like normal fee of 0.0001 btc? (About 2 or 3 cents)
If so, wouldn't a move to a minimum fee of say ten cents largely fix the problem?
Also, do you know why Satoshi decided to limit the block size in the first place? I mean, I've heard it was to prevent some kind of spam attack, but now people are saying that increasing block size will prevent spam attack... I've never seen a good description of the attack they were trying to mitigate by limiting block size in the first place. Best guess is simply to prevent bloat?
I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that there was no block size limit in Satoshi's software. They added it later. He believed in game theory where things sort themselves out through risk and reward.