Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B35E42A for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 14:25:08 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: delayed 00:05:04 by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.15]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C935A9 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 14:25:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [178.62.176.94] by 3capp-mailcom-bs02.server.lan (via HTTP); Thu, 23 Jul 2015 16:19:59 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: From: slurms@gmx.us To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 16:19:59 +0200 Importance: normal Sensitivity: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:xCsTP6LFdSjWV1sX/8zYe0H4MVyyiVu/001QZq93+mQ 2bg0Oci/47yh/mx7spRT4Z3bCFNi+V54VlSE2+pLf2e6559d2y XU7uAOUKwtzM+oTcJEVgvwUwcrBbP1iZNMfS4MFXx0wm1Rfz2Z ed0sXHvNxsXcFPXE1OpbI7gn9YdoTEFwv32XgJZ0FXEjR8uZZQ OOVETicqRbzlJmEboM0HI9wQ6fxZrPzti6C1LDOUYpPWoOX5SG 7g51IE5+WB47tB0HAeIFTtmhEUncRqzA8VP47jZsFZmd0d46Xu Ead6jaPKqXIcBsulr/ByvYjzaet X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:hHFkz/5Zpf0=:fZ9skRSBtQg2+7bdgcP2CK O4rQYbXUrZv2772EJP4iGHHBJZPFUrfTd+RZyzEx4+JaES2wnLESM4O9v710Mu79VQrSGOI/t dpxNotelnFSzB6Ocy1VX5qhIBHIUtwVeL/64B+pyuGXsQoZ3z3kAefOg8+xH36L3ni4sUv+h7 ZnfiOvoTGm1FZsKxJhRF3wrCE6Jivjlr1Mp+nwwB4DYxi/EromuciwjQMQug0YbXENCGpC0i1 PERnkwT6l8QfxAQxq2CfwQ/oYphGxVMwNPh8Q3Vn9XHKh0rrh3nSiplJKbuGRjmtEe1zTaSyv XUPBfycaYlMeS/VSMadp1fBKZQKraSAoEoiLmUCL5ovvX/TP2SaL9J2TaUWMp3qNTGdiYyBzp uoG7T0loBBDInvaSZ6W3DFyH3qxCXsF5T8SMdrViXTlwP11rzUCgHxvv+2AQ2kPmtxeizoZQZ e2Nn6WvANw== X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Node Speed Test X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 14:25:08 -0000 On this day, the Bitcoin network was crawled and reachable nodes surveyed t= o find their maximum throughput in order to determine if it can safely supp= ort a faster block rate=2E Specifically this is an attempt to prove or disp= rove the common statement that 1MB blocks were only suitable slower interne= t connections in 2009 when Bitcoin launched, and that connection speeds hav= e improved to the point of obviously supporting larger blocks=2E The testing methodology is as follows: =C2=A0* Nodes were randomly selected from a peers=2Edat, 5% of the reachab= le nodes in the network were contacted=2E =C2=A0* A random selection of blocks was downloaded from each peer=2E =C2=A0* There is some bias towards higher connection speeds, very slow con= nections (<30KB/s) timed out in order to run the test at a reasonable rate= =2E =C2=A0* The connecting node was in Amsterdam with a 1GB NIC=2E=20 =C2=A0 Results: * 37% of connected nodes failed to upload blocks faster than 1MB/s=2E * 16% of connected nodes uploaded blocks faster than 10MB/s=2E * Raw data, one line per connected node, kilobytes per second http://past= ebin=2Ecom/raw=2Ephp?i=3D6b4NuiVQ This does not support the theory that the network has the available bandwi= dth for increased block sizes, as in its current state 37% of nodes would f= ail to upload a 20MB block to a single peer in under 20 seconds (referencin= g a number quoted by Gavin)=2E If the bar for suitability is placed at taki= ng only 1% of the block time (6 seconds) to upload one block to one peer, t= hen 69% of the network fails for 20MB blocks=2E For comparison, only 10% fa= il this metric for 1MB blocks=2E