So assuming a 10m block time, to fill a 32MB block, we would require:
(0.00025 BCH per input * 160 inputs per node = 0.04 BCH per node) * 64 nodes = ~2.56 BCH to fill a 32MB block
Current BCH price of ~$81 * ~2.56 total units required = ~$207 to fill a 32MB block
Current BSV price of ~77 * ~2.56 total units required = ~$197 to fill a 32MB block
Split between 64 people that’s less than $4 per node to contribute to a full block for either chain 🙂
Of course, in practice we would require more BCH as variance could cause a block to be mined before the block is completely filled. Variance alone would be enough to throw off the test for 1-2 blocks minimum. Each of the 160 inputs wouldn’t be depleted after the 1 block, so it might be enough to last for 2-3 blocks.. perhaps somebody could help with this math since I’m too tired to do it right now lol 🙂
Why would we want to do this?
Well, it’s been a while since we’ve made the network shit itself, and a lot of improvements have been implemented in the time that has passed since. It is worthwhile to test these improvements on the mainnet to see if previous bottlenecks have been resolved. Plus, with the BCH price so cheap, the financial impact on users is heavily reduced than the previous September 2018 stress test.
Also, this would simulate real cash velocity, with each transaction being broadcasted to each node on the network as though humans were sending the transactions themselves. Compared to BSV’s
shadow-mined 32MB blocks of non-broadcasted transactions from around the time of the 11/15 fork, this would be a more realistic test of the network’s capability to handle the transaction load, as well as a full 32MB block.
Interested to hear your thoughts