Understandable for sure. Does it replicate 1:1?
I once had a poorly received idea to stress-test transactions by using a large group of accounts all sending some HBD/HIVE amongst themselves every 3-odd seconds, would this work?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
That would test transaction processing, but that's really fast now that most of the front ends use broadcast_transaction instead of broadcast_transaction_synchronous
Yes I know - I am just wondering just how fast it can be. I am not sure how accurate blocktivity is these days, but I think we could do better. Not sure if it is still valid, but once upon a time it would have been good publicity - especially considering that all the transactions are free (for the user)
Yes, it would be interesting to see how fast it could be, especially since we know we're much faster now as we're using broadcast_transaction calls.
But I still think such a test is best done on a testnet first. Some of the witnesses should be able to arrange for a test like this.
There are real long term tradeoffs associated with blockchain bloat when coins decide to run a bunch of useless transactions on their mainnet just to rank higher on a web page. EOS became incredibly painful to sync up after a while because of all the spam transactions and it wastes disk space as well, making it more expensive to host an EOS node.
Now, we could do a short test just to rank on the "Record" portion of blocktivity.
But before we do that, we should test on a testnet, find and fix any potential bottlenecks, and only then go for a "record breaker". There is one known performance bottleneck associated with the thread locking that I already plan to fix in hived (in the next couple of months), and it might put an upper limit on how many transactions we could currently handle.
By the way, I took a look at blocktivity.info (hadn't been there in a while) and it reports Hive traffic is up 27% this week. Hive is at #7 there now (EOS is at #6).