Thanks, Christian , for the update. The community experience of using IC has been far less charitable than deeming it a “full success”. If this was just expected to be an experiment to get some data, I suppose one could call it a success.
While we might have gotten some interesting data, please remember that we got this data at the expense of by making 100k users, shall we say, furious. Not the most optimal nor wise way of getting data.
Secondly , if it was known that this was not going to scale apriori (as your post seems to imply), why was it not communicated to icpunks. They were tweeting at difinity, Dominic et al for at least 24+ hours. icpunks , if I may remind you, is a recipient of dfinity grant. It seems silly to give someone a grant if one is not interested in the project that is the subject of the grant.
Thirdly what is the path forward? What is the communication strategy to deal with this situation? How are we planning to address the developer community? While Rome was certainly not built in a day, ICP has been touted to be ready to take on the toughest challenges. It clearly is not, today. Think about it from this perspective. If IC cannot sustain a website traffic of 100k users, how will the community trust it with the BTC integration?
Instead of analyzing the data and applying the lessons in private, open up a little. Engage with the community explaining what just happened. Who knows, you might get pointer or two on solving issues before they happen? Distributed computing is hard; but you guys have been at this for 5 years.
Oh and talking about the lessons learnt, I am surprised that there isn’t a load generator that should be used to simulate the load. Perhaps that could be the first thing to built so that whenever the fixes do come in, they can be tested.