Quote from: meono on August 18, 2015, 05:34:15 PM

Quote from: unamis76 on August 18, 2015, 05:28:00 PM

Quote from: meono on August 18, 2015, 05:18:07 PM

Quote from: unamis76 on August 18, 2015, 05:13:18 PM

Again? Is this test going indeed to be on it's finest or are the servers crashing again? And why? We already got the message, thank you...

Are you sure about that? did you read posts from the anti-BitcoinXT campaign?

Here is a summary: their crystal balls tell them we have a long way to get to blocksize limit increase.

Yes, I am pretty much sure we already got the message. Otherwise, block size increase probably wouldn't be in the talks right now. The message is "you need to do something if you want many transactions to go through". That's what we already doing. Message has been clearly received and we are working on solving issues.

Quote from: dothebeats on August 18, 2015, 05:20:56 PM

so I don't really see what's the point of this stress-testing aside from pushing XT fork to happen.

The point is probably creating chaos or disrupting their own service Roll Eyes

really? did you read posts like this:

Quote from: turtlehurricane on August 18, 2015, 05:29:57 PM

Quote from: quakefiend420 on August 18, 2015, 05:14:08 PM

Quote from: dothebeats on August 18, 2015, 05:06:23 PM

Minimum benefits, lots of potential damages. XT only worsen the situation of bitcoin. Investors are panicking now because of the "split" which is just unnecessary. Idk why they are pushing bigger block size when in fact 1mb is just right in this current times. What's the most plausible explanation why they are pushing higher block size?

1MB isn't right. We're already at 50% capacity(and increasing). I think the recent stress tests showed us that 1MB isn't sufficient.

LN looks great, but it's not ready yet and won't be for a while. This will help hold us over until other scaling solutions are ready to be deployed.

I don't like the increase schedule in XT, my hope is that XT is the catalyst to get Core team to agree on some sort of increase and we can reassess later once we see how other scaling solutions are progressing. Just because the network moves to 8MB blocks now doesn't mean that we're beholden to the every two years schedule built into XT now.

The stress tests proved that blocksize isn't an issue. I love how some people come to the completely opposite conclusion.

Even with magnitudes more transactions than usual the network ran smoothly. The doomsday backlog that the stress test people projected never materialized, transaction fees went up to balance the spam and legitimate transactions continued to go through in the next block.

The Bitcoin Core team said block size doesn't need to be increased, and many people here have that view. Propaganda in the media is tricking many into thinking this is an issue when it is not.

Or you're just simply focusing on BitcoinXT supporters post?

I've read such posts and others in the forum. The backlog did not materialize, obviously, their tests failed consecutively and had offline times... They already proved that in full blocks you either pay up fees or you have delays. If you don't want delays you must pay higher. The network handled the situation as desired. But the situation we were in during stress tests wasn't as favorable as the one we have now.

This doesn't have anything to do with supporting XT or Core. This has to do with the blockchain being 100% capable of handling transactions on the next block with small or no fees.