Bitcoin Forum

Lauda is a stupid kid. She used all of her alt accounts to Bitmixer campaign herself.

Even though we paid a lot of fees we still have to wait for confirmation.
Unconfirmed transactions list too huge, it says 40k transaction is still waiting. All blocks are full. Core devs have to do something about that. I guess Bitcoin transaction volume is too big for 1MB blocks now.

https://i.imgur.com/cuiXtIY.png

40k and still waiting? 1mb is fine, just make bigger transactions instead of micro ones...

This site can be helpful to you all https://bitcoinfees.21.co/ (https://bitcoinfees.21.co/). "predicting bitcoin fees for transactions."

Wow lots of unconfimed transactions, relax they will confirm somehow...this is good ....indicates world are using bitcoin...

im tired of this, classic/segwit says its ok 40 k unconfirmed, other people from unlimited saying they are destroying bitcoin not increasing block size limit to more MB...
all have their arguments, im just tired, confirmation times getting ridicolous its simple as that :/

It happens some time. It's very annoying, but have a little patience probably will all end well. Once it happened to me that the transaction wasn't confirmed for two days and I was crazy, so I understand But I also know some cases where it wasn't confirmed at all so you have to be prepared on that scenario too.

Just think of the upside when the block size is actually increased.
All the negativity associated with the fight would be removed. :)

Yes, yesterday I had this issue. I paid the high fee to do a transaction and I had to wait a lot of hours. I did the transaction at 18:00 and was more than midnight when I exit and the transaction wasn't finished yet.

If it's happen often, I think they should do something to make it faster again.

i think i this 1mb blocks my transaction is also included .
because i made a transaction yesterday night but still i didn't get any confirmation , now i think it is going for the some big fault . i hope this problem should be solve easily .

There are really times  that confirmations would  really took soo  long   to be  confirmed even though you pay  already  more than   on the average   transaction fee. I dont  know   on what would  be the  exact reason  is   but   one things for sure  blockchain is too  overload  on  transfering  transaction.

i have the same problem...almost 12 hours still unconfirmed with high priority

I think thats the main problem overload of transactions or many users especially big amount holders are getting to a transaction so the tendency is the process of waiting and the other transactions will be on waiting list .
It is started yesterday when i transfered my bitcoins it takes about 14hours now and still unconfirmed.

-SilverPunk-

in my opinion this is mainly because of the adoption, there are too many people using bitcoin and it no longer can handle this many transactions per day with only 1mb blocks.

and this situations like 43K unconfirmed transactions are becoming more frequent, this also happened before but it was solved fast enough but now it seems like it takes a much longer time to solve itself because the pile on is also big.

Is this kind of situation may affect the price of Bitcoin like decreasing because of the unconfirmed transactions?

and I this situation is a common problem of Bitcoin?  

this is temporary so no, it is not going to affect bitcoin price much if at all.
but if it continues being like this for a couple of months with lets say 50K-100K unconfirmed transactions with fees increasing every day then yes people are going to stop using bitcoin and price will be affected.


no, it is not common. although it has been happening more often recently. and hopefully will be solved with some solution for the block size increase.

Two sides:
The good:
This is good and shows that the world are using Bitcoin
The Bad:
Shows that Bitcoin are not made do deal with alot of transations, lets pick one exemple: U go to bakery and buy one bread, you pay with bitcoin but the owner ask to you please wait until 1 confirmation, to avoid double spend... and you wait for 12 fucking hours to bring the bread to your house.
This is not funny at all,

Perhaps you need to pay more fees.


Maybe core devs want you to pay more fees, so they are happy about the 40k transactions waiting?


Maybe core devs want smaller transaction volume?  If they leave the blocks at 1 MB, then people will have to pay higher fees.  If people have to pay higher fees, then less people will use bitcoin.  If less people use bitcoin, then there will be less transactions.  If there are less transactions, then the 1MB blocks won't be full anymore. If the 1MB blocks aren't full, then people won't need to increase the fees anymore.  The system will eventually reach an equilibrium.  Maybe core devs want Mush smaller transaction volume with much higher fees?

there are ways to make a risk assessment about the risk of double spending for example https://www.blockcypher.com/dev/bitcoin/#confidence-factor
and although these are not 100% but it is a good start.

also a bakery is never gonna care about 1 confirmation or zero as its users are not going to double spend to scam for price of a bread (it is not Oliver Twist era :D) besides most end users (regular) doesn't even know double spend is a thing.

I think this is a pretty good argument for raising the maximum block size.

I really cannot think of a realistic scenario that is good for Bitcoin when less people are using Bitcoin.

Granted, things like SegWit and LN are "on the way" however they are still very complex and untested, while my understanding is that an increase of the max block size would be fairly simple.

Explain me how it woks then, im waiting just 8 hours to get 1 confirmation on one small buy ( Buy one steam game) with "High Priority" fees that never confirms

More than 12 hours passed yet one of my transactions hasn't been confirmed it's so irritating

I have experienced this problem twice in using bitcoin. Last few months i experienced this kind of problem. I recieved my bitcoin 12 hours after I withdrawn. Today its been 13 hours my transaction is still unconfirmed Im hopping that I will recieved my bitcoin any time today. I needed it cause Im converting it to Fiat today.

People need to start using other coins, bitcoin simply can't handle all these transactions, continuing doing bitcoin transactions will just aggravate the problem.

It has become clear for quite some time now that it is not reliable to transact using bitcoin.

It would be easier for you to share the transaction ID so we can look into it, or at least tell us what the fee and byte size of your transaction is. My only guess at this point is that your fee/byte ratio is on the very low side.

I had experienced such a slow down as well some time ago. It was a +900byte transaction with 0.0001BTC in fees. It look nearly half a day to get confirmed. Can it be that the coins that you have bought your steam game with, is a collection of a lot dusty faucet payouts? That could explain this slow down as well.

Edit:


The fee is simply too low in order to make it interesting for pools to include your transaction into their block. The fee should be at least in the 0.0005 regions.

im bought btc from btc seller, and not from steam game, its still slow, 16 hours still unconfirmed
tx : cb6c39ea9d7724275f2d297d610349501e3db6e10f9241e11cb9956bf36a9751

Size   226 (bytes)
Received Time   2016-10-25 19:21:14
Estimated Confirmation Time   Very Soon (High Priority)
Relayed by IP    5.9.16.236 (whois)
Visualize   View Tree Chart
Inputs and Outputs
Total Input   3.949661 BTC
Total Output   3.949548 BTC
Fees   0.000113 BTC
Estimated BTC Transacted   0.246 BTC

Also not confirming anytime soon.

Hope will confirmed before 24 hours

23 hours past transaction still unconfirmed, debate for max blocksize increase is on.

Same here 37314769f700174a2316f7fde266e4818ede7bd12dee76e9bf79160da99188e6
55sat/b and no confrimation after mare than 12 hours

Wrong.

It's completely predictable, and your assertion is irresponsible nonsense. If someone can tolerate waiting for up to 72 hours, there's a fee for that. And if you can't wait 10 minutes, there's a fee for that too.

I realise you're one of these hard fork idiots, and so we're all still waiting for an answer to this question: why don't you just fork your actual self to a different community? Altcoin, Tumblr safe-space, whatever. But no-one actually wants you people around, as all you do is create a bad atmosphere. Go and be positive about something you approve of, or just go away.



226 bytes / 0.000113 BTC = 50 satoshis per byte.

You need to pay more than 60 satoshis per byte to attain reliable transaction confirmations.

i guess 40k transactions which are now currently waiting also included with microtransaction which only having small fees that actually and the transaction that's lack of fees and having low priority,you just need to set the proper fees to get high priority,and i think 1mb is not a problem for now,it's just my opinion by the way

If 6 cents is "exorbitant", maybe Bitcoin needs slightly less scrooge-ish users?

This is what makes me angry :

http://i65.tinypic.com/5p0myw.jpg

A 0 kb Block although there is a ton of transactions that need confirmation.

Start mining then.


What is this, the thread where everyone whinges, but exercises zero imagination to solve their own problems? The victim thread? ::)

35 cents is exorbitant to you? Maybe join a sig campaign? Oh no, you already have.


If you don't like it, find something cheaper. Calling the network a "joke", based upon your own inadequacies, isn't something that you should expect to be taken seriously.

When people talk about unconfirm transactions they don't mention the transaction fee, if you want your transaction to be moved fast you need to put a reasonable transaction fee.

I personally never faced any problems like that with my transactions in bitcoin, i can't really understand why that happens, because it is because of the load on network because of too much transactions at once, or maybe because of low fees, never read anything about this problem as never faced it, the ones who face it should read more about it.

If you don't understand why the fees are needed (and you were in Bitcoin "at the beginning", as you describe), then your complaint belongs in the garbage. If you don't want to learn about the system you're using, so that you can get the best advantage from it, that's your problem.

Blockspace is, and needs to be, a scarce resource. Scarce resources have a market price. It didn't take me "since the beginning" of Bitcoin to learn this basic fact.

Yes, I have to pay more fees, like 10 cents at least instead of 6 cents. I raised my tx fees in Electrum.
I don't know what Core devs think but they all should think different. Just look at Jeff Garzik's tweet about that.
Jeff Garzik ‏@jgarzik  11 hr.
Just paid $0.19 equiv. in #bitcoin transaction fees, to send $2.00 equiv. in BTC.

This is madness to pay so much percentage...

I agree that the higher fees are not a good thing for everyone sending and receiving transactions. And especially not when it comes to transactions only worth a few bucks.

This however is the result of the greediness under the major pools. They decide which transaction they will add in their block, and which one not (based on financial priority).

Right now you can see it as an auction. People are somewhat outbidding each other to get their transaction added in the next block. Pools are just enjoying all these little extra's that they generate.

Why is this a bad thing.  There are unconfirmed transactions all of the time.  The only way to put a stop to this is to add more miners.  With the cost of mining, that may not be an option, but does it really matter?  They will confirm, they just need time.  For the fees we pay to have this done, I see no issue with it.

Yeah, let's get some more miners ... that will fix everything.

It's a terrible thing for any business (eg. gambling sites, especially on-chain ones) that require fast confirming transactions for payments. Some people, regular users of bitcoin may not be aware that their transaction or payment is not being sent because of the built up unconfirmed tx, and end up blaming the company/service provider for this problem. Time-sensitive orders and purchases where people use bitcoin to transact suffers greatly from this issue.

I have to claim ignorance at this point, so I have to ask the questions.  I did not know this could happen for I use coinbase and there has never been much of an issue for my transactions.  So when there is still a backup of unconfirmed transactions like this, why do some transactions go through and some do not?  If they are not confirmed for a long period, will they go back to the sender, chancing the receiver loosing funds on something they already gave out?

^^^  I am sorry, I do not know everything hen it comes to bitcoin, but why would you pay a fee that high?  Is it something you choose or is it something the system charged you?  As I have stated in the past, i use coinbase and my fees are minimal for some reason.  I have never paid above .0001 doe a fee on any of my transactions unless I am using another site, such as bust a bit, or similar.

Does this mean that if I send some bitcoin right now that it will take a long time to be confirmed?  I like playing dice and I was about to play, just do nto want to waste my time on here if it will take a bit to get confirmed to play.

Those unconfirmed transaction may also include lots of transaction also which have enough fee or quite lower than recommend fee so over few blocks those get confirmed however by that time there will be even same number of transaction with similar fee structure get added and we are seeing same number all time however most of those stucked transaction get through and only few with 0 fee get stucked.

Coinbase pays the fee for you.  If the fees continue to rise, then I suspect that eventually Coinbase will no longer be able to afford to do that, and they will eventually start subtracting the fees that they pay from your balance.


It is determined by the amount of fees per byte of transaction size that you pay.  The miner (or mining pool) that solves a block gets all the transaction fees of all the transactions that get their first confirmation in his block.  The miner (or mining pool) is allowed to choose which unconfirmed transactions they want to confirm in their block.  The miner (or mining pool) is not allowed to create blocks that are larger than 1 megabyte in size. Therefore, there is an incentive for the miner (or mining pool) to choose the transactions that pay the highest fee per byte until their block is full.  Then all the remaining transactions have to wait in line until the next block.  If additional transaction are broadcast while everyone is waiting for the next block, and those additional transaction pay a higher fee, then the additional transactions will get confirmed, while the existing transactions that pay a lower fee will continue to wait.
 

Effectively ,yes.  Literally, no.

In a literal, technical, way the bitcoins don't ever leave the control of your wallet until the transaction is confirmed. Therefore, if the transaction is unconfirmed then it is technically possible to replace that transaction with a different transaction, and in doing so, the original transaction becomes invalid and vanishes from the bitcoin network.

Effectively this means that until the transaction is confirmed, your wallet software can choose to forget that it sent the original transaction and show those bitcoins as being "back under the control of the sender".


Yes.  This is why the receiver of the bitcoins should never give out anything of value in exchange for bitcoins unless either the transaction has enough confirmations to reach the risk tollerance of the transaction recipient, or the transaction recipient has a trust relationship with the sender.

This is a weird situation where transaction taking so long to get confirm.About 50k unconfirmed transaction now.It's good sign for bitcoin too the amount of bitcoin user increased a lot.

Maybe it's time we need more powerful miners or maybe 5 minutes for every block will be effective to handle this kind of situation.Some people talked about increase the amount of fee.Giving $1 for a $10 transaction makes no sense.

Calm down? No  >:(

I sent 14 BTC, after 24h no show. I sent 30 BTC with double fee, no show. And another 30 BTC with a lot of fees. Still no show.
That makes trading impossible if you dont want to keep all your BTC at the exchange wallet what maybe get hacked sooner or later.

Now i'm waiting for 74 BTC...due to that i already lost 10% profit chance.

Lol. Why does you keep sending huge amount while your first deposit is too slow to confirmed? Hahahah.
I'm waiting too for 24hrs when i withdraw my 1 btc from exchanged. It is still unconfirmed until now.  What happening to the blockchain.

It's a little congested right now. I'm waiting on a small transaction from 14 hours ago.  I've never waited this long before.

Usually this happens because we provide a fee which is not recommended by any transaction in the bitcoin. That I prove that I do  transactions  with a fee that is not advised of the bitcoin so after that I have to wait until a couple of days and I finally get 1 confirmation. something very interfere with and this can give a bad effects when we conduct transactions on something that requires confirmation in advance

I need the BTC for trading. And as I wrote I increased the fee massively at the end.

Actually I believe it's a spam attack.
We've had it about a week ago too, back then the mempool rose to 23MB then and it took one day to clean up and get to normal.
Now I see again a rise to 16MB yesterday and one more started last night and still continuing, now reaching about 28MB. Somebody is clearly trying something... it's ugly and needs time to clean.. after the spam stops...

Yeah, this is really frustrating I've been waiting for 9 hours this time for just 0.025 transactions, and I've send a small amount of btc to a gambling site but it as what others experiencing this time, its 0 confirmation since I've send it.  :'(

Even though you increased the fee. There will be no changed because of so many pending unconfirmed transaction. I think you became suspicious when the transaction takes too long to confirmed. When my 1 btc withdrawal takes 1hr without confirmation, i decided to stop withdraw other funds so that they will not got stuck up. Btw i hope our BTC will ne process as soon as possible.

yes a lots of unconfimed transactions..

if you don't know, Your 2nd transaction won't get confirm as your first transaction is still unconfirmed.Try to contact with pool winner's the will be add your transaction on next block.Maybe with a little tip.

Nothing you can do but wait and keep patients :(

OK, so you're supporting the blocksize trolls who push for unwise increases to the network burden without considering the ill-effects? At least things are clear now.



So, what are you, yes you John, going to do about it? Come on, wow us with your incredible never-heard-before insights into how to expand the capacity of the Bitcoin network? Oh, wait, what's that? You've got nothing but a bunch of hand waving? (and political soundbites from persona-non-grata Jeff Garzik, courtesy of his narcissists-anonymous account?).

You're a real productive, useful person around here, aren't you?

one that became my way to speed up the transaction is to increase the transaction fee. because the larger the fee, the faster also solve the bitcoin block in the system. it would be very helpful every transaction we do.  ;D

Yes, today transaction is delayed too long. ???
I hope it will get fixed soon.

the transaction still delayed try to send my btc earnings from yobit to c-cex for almost 2hrs now but still nothing is
confirmed yet hope this delayed can be resolved while btc is rallying up.

You can see live charts of the unconfirmed transaction queue at https://www.bitcoinqueue.com (my project)

This is by far the highest peak of unconfirmed tx we have ever seen so far...  :o

Changed to 24 hour view, it is growing from about 10000 to almost reaching 50000 :o
I am surprised now.

Interesting, where can we found some data like whom is spaming ?

Just to get clarity here you mean there are people who actually have control on how transactions are run for every satoshi sent and received ???

Looks like more an attack with several small transactions that anything else, the hash keeps the same from the miners, the transactions are getting into high values really, its insane someone be doing such thing for what delaying transactions from all.

Yes maybe it is the cause of the growing number of users bitcoin. It sometimes takes a long time for confirmation if you want to send. I never experienced a transaction that has not been confirmed for around 5 days. Perhaps it should be fixed in order confirmation can be faster.

You have to consider that many entities will send many transactions every day. $0.35 may not be a lot of money, but when spend hundreds or thousands of times per day, it quickly adds up.

If the transaction fee related costs continue to rise, then using Bitcoin may exceed the cost of using more traditional payment methods like credit cards and ACH transfers.

Seems like it, but that's a pretty crappy attack these days. These spam attacks used to be very disruptive, but now the mempool cleanser has been introduced (I think that was version 0.12) as well as compact blocks, the sole effect is to push fees up a little.  I really hope whoever is behind it is feeling frustrated at how little they can disrupt the network these days.

Yes, I have also noticed that in the past day, the mempool has been quite backed up.

https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-size?timespan=1week

I have not seen much explanation from anybody regarding what is going on exactly.

The back-up from last week lasted for about 12 hours. 

I'm thinking that there is some kind of spam attack going on, because exponential peaks, like this, just do not make much sense.

As we can see from the linked blockchain.info chart, blockchain.info has only been providing (and tracking) mempool fullness data since early May 2016.

 I have a current transaction has been stuck for almost 19 hours, as I type, and zero confirmations, and the one that I had last week was backed up for nearly 3 hours.  Most of my other previously long transactions were  about 90 minutes.... otherwise most of my transactions had tended to go through in less than an hour.

I am thinking that the big blocker, blocksize limit arguing folks are kind of losing credibility with seg wit about to go live, and they may be attempting to get some attention to the matter by spamming the blockchain for the next few months..   That's my current theory and thinking based on my lack of information regarding some of the specifics, and my ongoing witnessing of the level of desperation, contradiction and bitcoin sabotaging that sometimes seems to be coming out of some folks from that big-blocker nutjobs camp.

Have had my rather larger sends of bitcoin not confirmed and it has been close to 18-20 hours now.
The tx fees that were sent to cover the miner's fees were as per usual.
Over 0.0008btc should of been enough to cover the sent amount and have them delivered by now.
If this is an ongoing trend then I expect not to see many people trading bitcoin until this issue with the blockchain has been resolved. :-[

Same here brother. :(
Had one last week not confirm until 4-5 hours and was getting worried that it would not fully and completely send to the recipient for 20 hours and I would have to refund them until it did. :-\

In the past few day, blockchain has received a significant number of transactions from many bitcoin users. According to some financial chart, the number of bitcoin transactions rise rapidly without any notice. I think people should calm down because you do not have to worry about this problem. It will be solve quickly

Don't be a stupid ass, MicroGuy.

Do you actually think that spikes that happened this week and about the same time last week are merely organic pressures on the bitcoin network - and accordingly the solution is to increase the blocksize in order to accommodate "organic growth." 

Get the fuck, real. 

There are big blocker nutjob folks who, for some reason, believe it is wise to attack the network in order to attempt to get their way about increasing the blocksize limits.  In that regard, they try to create problems.

These must be Mike Hearn rage quitter types, who really do not appreciate the value of bitcoin, and aim to undermine bitcoin in various ways...

In the end, I am not a very technical kind of guy, and so in that regard, I hope that some intermediary technical fixes can come about because it seems that once seg wit goes live then some of the blocksize limit matters will be addressed - though I am not sure if seg wit will potentially cause additional attack vectors or provide ways to lessen these attack vectors.

So, I sold some virtual stuff for some guy, and he send moneys like 10 hours ago.


Blocktrail.com says Fee information : Not enough fee to relay

Does this mean that I won't see my moneys? Never had this kind of issues.

I think there's a lot of exchanges happening because of the rise in the price of Bitcoin. But 50,000 unconfirmed transactions is fairly a lot. Does anyone here know by when will all of these transactions confirm and will it take days to do so? I'm also of the opinion that an attack on the network is in progress to fill the blocks like in the past.

Think of the block size as 1MB ram. Right now we need a memory upgrade -- big time. hehe

~~

Recommended reading: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/

Think of 1MB of RAM as having the same cost and delivery schedule as rolling out FTTP fibre broadband to the majority of households worldwide. Not thinking of it the same way now, huh? lol.

Don't get me wrong, worldwide internet capacity will be able to handle blocksize expansion, likely before 2020, but not yet. That would be advocating for only the elite internet users to be able to run Bitcoin, wouldn't it?

I had to wait over 4 hours for a transaction to confirm the other day. Had a sufficient fee too.

If it is saturated, that's because people is using Bitcoin. Bitcoin wasn't intented to be instant, never. That's more a store of value. For one second transactions, use altcoins.

If it were actual organic usage that was causing the delays and the backlog, then it would be understandable that there is some kind of seeming emergency and something needs to be done in order to make it better.

This current and ongoing situation does not appear to be any kind of organic usage situation. 

Accordingly, yesterday, about 24 hours ago, as I type, there was a sudden and unexplained spike in the transactions and ongoing jam..   A very similar thing happened last week, but it seemed to have been resolved in less than 12 hours.  Anyhow, the current blockages appear more as if they are attempts at sabotage in order to cause impressions of some kind of emergency situation that does not in reality exist, except for the purposeful, malicious and currently ongoing attack/sabotage.

Summary
Size   966 (bytes)
Fee Rate   0.00041407867494824016 BTC per kB
Received Time   Oct 26, 2016 9:27:51 PM
Mined Time   N/A
Included in Block   Unconfirmed

Summary
Size   371 (bytes)
Fee Rate   0.0005 BTC per kB
Received Time   Oct 26, 2016 9:56:28 PM
Mined Time   N/A
Included in Block   Unconfirmed
LockTime   435928

Summary
Size   372 (bytes)
Fee Rate   0.0005 BTC per kB
Received Time   Oct 26, 2016 9:56:34 PM
Mined Time   N/A
Included in Block   Unconfirmed
LockTime   435928



I'm just going to and 18 hours for this trasacción in which I am sending money to a company for an investment.
I did it for Xapo so I do not really see that payment rates until the order command.
I did not find any option to upload the commission.
Although I do not think this is the solution because if we all climbed 45000 share transactions will be staying the same.

In all this time using BitCoins is the first time it happens!
How do I use an online wallet and thought that something had happened to the company because it has more outstanding payment.
But then I saw that is generic.

The strange thing is that 7 transactions. 4 have been made and only 3 are waiting for more than 18 hours.

What kind of attack is this? Last 1 hour we didn't see any new block and Unconfirmed Transactions reached to maybe all time high 60.000. I've never seen something like that before.
Total Fees   25,981.56222966 BTC
Total Size   29825.55 (KB)
Transactions Per Second   2.6

It's not an attack, again, it's just the result of saturation on the blockchain.

The recent price increase has resulted in a high amount of transactions, much higher than the regular volume. As a result, you are now seeing over 60k transactions that have built up on the queue:

https://www.bitcoinqueue.com/details/4d.html

https://i.imgur.com/WsCXfdc.png

"there was a sudden and unexplained spike". duh... Like no one want to use bitcoin.
"A very similar thing happened last week," Oh, so this sudden and unexplained spike is not such a surprise.

"the current blockages appear more as if they are attempts at sabotage in order to cause impressions of some kind of emergency situation that does not in reality exist" Mostly innocent free paying bitcoiners. 32,000 paying 40sat/byte or MORE at time of writing.

It cant be happening man! Pull ya head out of the sand.

Edit - 50 40 sat/byte

Are there fees in those txs?
I guess there are. So it will be a game theo task to the miners to switch to BU and earn that extra honey first and we will see a run....

Yes the fee breakdown is in the key frame at the bottom in sat/B

Why would they do that? Scarcer transactions means the aggregated fees will be higher for the miners, not lower. They would need more actual people transacting for the same blocksize for the math to make that true. All that happens if you multiply the space is that you divide the fee rate by the same factor, hence miners make the same amount of BTC irrespective of the blocksize.

If those transactions aren't spam, the real people doing their real business need that money sent, so the miners make more money if they just wait while they pick them off. Any more shilling for coup attempts you'd like to treat us to?

What happend to this block : Bloc 435981

size 0% in a rush time, that is very strange to me. :)

If someone has an explanation ?

Source : https://fr.kaiko.com/block/000000000000000002eb076392586c5b034ba3826ff6adb459bc57db4191943e

EDIT : I think I understand it's a reward, but why it is not added to other transaction ? (Maybe a way to optimize a bit the blocsize use.)

I would call it skepticism.

There has been a considerable amount of misinformation and disinformation coming from the big blocker camp, and I have also read about spam attacks.

It does not look like organic growth to me, as many big blocker folks seem to be wanting to argue. 

In other words, if this happens to be real, then the crying of wolf by many big blockers has undermined the credibility of such assertions and I am not going to buy into those claims without further and better evidence.

Here's the 1 week:

https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-size?timespan=1week

You can also zoom out to the 1 month.  Those depictions of the mempool backlog does not look organic to me, no matter how much you attempt to assert that it is.

Are you also arguing that an immediate increase to 2mb would likely resolve the issue? with a gun to the head of those folks with transactions pending?

and so we are just waiting now without no action?  24 hours more still unconfirmed . it is really not good for small business.

Yes..... The number of unconfirmed transactions building up in the mempool seems to be at an all time high, approaching 30 million bytes.

https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-size?timespan=30days

My unconfirmed transaction from yesterday was about 1,700 bytes, and is now about 25 hours old, with still no confirmations. 

By the way, my transaction fee was calculated by a default Mycellium wallet setting at .00085844 BTC (about $.56 and about 51 satoshis per byte - by the way the transmission was a value of a bit more than 2.56 BTC).   


Surely, I am looking forward to hearing some kind of official report regarding what is happening and what kinds of actions are being taken to attempt to address this seemingly ongoing spam attack issue......

i tried to contact blockchain and the answer they said they dont have authority of this problem..... i have no idea now..

I'm seeing pay commissions "FEE: 0.04265666 BTC" so that transactions are confirmed.
And yet only half an hour even have a confirmation.
And that sending 25BTC.

¡¡¡40MB!!!

65933 Unconfirmed Transactions Live updating list of new bitcoin transactions

Términos de uso
Summary   Status: Connected
Total Fees   16.50175792 BTC
Total Size   40756.536 (KB)
Transactions Per Second   1.7
Orphan Count   176

I had thinked this issue were already been fixed now looks like it will be a long time waiting the small transactions to go further, those should return normal this month? Its a mess this situation too many transactions for a short period, just because price is getting bigger.

LMAO

In September 2015, the mempool had over 190,000 pending txs.
This is pretty weak so far. Its going to take a few more days to get to something worth watching.

People overreacting now are either ignorant or pushing an agenda of ignorance.

Well, I think blockchain.info is merely a website that provides a wallet and various blockchain information.  Sure they are active in the community, but I think that they are correct that they do not necessarily get involved in mining or developing.

So the miners likely can see what is going on, too, but I am not sure what they can do about it, except to maybe identify ways to prioritize while still trying to find blocks.   And, developers could possibly work solutions if they can identify issues.

Even though bitcoin is still up and running, this is almost like a DDOS attack, largely, if transactions cannot be processed for many hours at a time (like more than a few hours starts to seem problematic)..  My non-processed transaction is currently at 26.5 hours, as I type, of no confirmations.

I don't know how you get off characterizing this situation as being caused by "just because price is getting bigger"?

This is an attack on the bitcoin network with spammers... and yeah, maybe part of the motivation is to attempt to keep the price from going up, but this is not any kind of organic growth of transactions situation.  The spike just does not support such a "organic growth" conclusion.

if you said DDOS then im totally agree about that

Sure, there is not a major problem if this is merely a once in a while situation that is being addressed and attempted to be addressed, and sure it is also not a major problem if it is within the realm of expectations of things that can happen and in the end, no one is screwed out of their transaction due to the delay (like double spend attempts - especially problematic if successful).. so, yeah, if for example, I give $5k to a guy and he sends me $5k worth of bitcoins, I am going to be kind of pissed off if I do not get the bitcoins, and he is already gone with the $5k that I have already given to him... or whatever it is of value that I have given.

I am not very much a technical person, so I am trying to make an analogy to suggest that from my understanding this seems to be a kind of similar situation, because to a certain degree nothing is going through.  There could be greater financial ramifications when we are considering a system that is transmitting items of value.. but to me, it seems as if there are still some similar kinds of dynamics when compariing what happens in a DDOS attack and what seems to be happening in the past 24+ hours.

If you are doing trades of $100 600 cash or more for bitcoin, you should be requiring the seller
pay a fee that will confirm next block. For example, currently a fee of at least 0.0004 will
have you confirmed by next block. Anyone willing to risk a lower fee, especially during a spam
attack or just higher than normal congestion, has accepted that risk and must wait on line.

You are a Legendary account, so this should be basic info for you by now.
For everyone else, go back and learn about the system you are willingly participating within.

Sure, yeah, I suppose there could be some assumption of risk, and there is certainly a lot of learning to do for a lot of folks in respect to bitcoin.

By the way, I did already describe my particular latest transaction in this post :  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1661792.msg16693870#msg16693870


The fee  was the default calculation of the Mycellium wallet of .00085844 BTC.

In this particular situation, I would assert that what is going on currently is not adequacy of fee situation.. there is some kind of an attack going on that is clogging things up.  Sure, I feel pretty lucky because I think that the guy that I was dealing with is not the kind of person that would try anything sleazy because I have done several transactions with him... So, I have a pretty high confidence level that I am not going to have any issues with either the transaction going through or getting him to resubmit the transaction, if for some reason it does not go through. 

On the other hand, surely there are some folks out there that are less than honorable, and even the most honorable persons could be tempted to walk away from any situation in which they receive value but the value is not transmitted (and they could get away with it).   

I have made six transactions yesterday yet only two transactions were confirmed. The remainings are still on the waiting list. I guess all we have to do now is to have more patience in this matter. As what as others saying, in no time all transactions will be confirmed. I just hope that they should address this issue as soon as possible.

and now soon will be going to 70k unconfirmed transactions. still nothing good happened

fees are antispam feature.
if you don't see it ... leave it.

network work well when you pay the right fee.
and we have plenty of site to verify this : https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_fees#Fee_Plotting_Sites

if someone want to emit bitcoin transaction ... it can ... by paying the right fees (priority fees mode in the bitcoin core or android wallet).

So, if we want fast transactions since now, do we need to pay highest fees?

I don't think it fair, because we were paying the same fees that now and the transactions were normal, and now, we need to pay highest fees. And I suppose if we pay highest fees now, some time later, there will be the necessity to increase again (when more people start using BTCs), no?

What is not fair?
When you pay the highest fee, you are paying for priority.
If you don't need priority and can wait, pay medium fee.

The problem is that the "medium" fee isn't being sufficient anymore to make the transactions go smoothly. Looks if many people are making transactions, the fee must be higher, or you won't complete it, canceling the transaction.

So, in the future the fees will be very highest than now, or we will never complete our transactions. Tell me if I'm wrong.

Mine still unconfirmed and it is 36 hours transaction and I am a high priority transaction.  But wait I have a transaction yesterday it only cost 15 mins to recieved  on my wallet. I think the only delayed is the transactions from oct 25- 26 earlier morning

Been waiting for confirmation for 12 hours in one of the transactions, 6 hours on another one and 1 hour on the most recent... looks like still have a couple of FUN days ahead to see this money on my pocket, at least im a little bit more relaxed after reading this, cuz i thought it was something wrong with my wallet or the other ppl's wallets...  ::)

There is no set fee structure.
The fee system is determined by your priority and the size of current mempool.
The "medium" fee is only a snap shot on a sliding scale.
The "medium" fee now is around 75 sato per byte.

The fee market will rise as long as there are bitcoin users who are willing to pay higher fees.
The reality is that it will stabilize at a certain level since most users will not pay more than $1 per tx.
So in theory you are correct, up to a point.

Hmm, Ok, understood. So, if I want a relative fast transaction, do I need to pay 75 satoshis per byte now? And do you know +/- how much time will it take to complete? (I think we were paying 32 satoshis per byte and it was going fast days ago).

And Yobit fee, for an example, the fee there is 20k satoshis. So, will I need to pay more there also since now?

Yes, if you paid 75 sato per byte now, then you are estimated to get your first confirmation within the
next 7 blocks, or +/- 120 minutes from now. See this site for fee estimations: https://bitcoinfees.21.co/ (https://bitcoinfees.21.co/)

If you want to be in the next block now, you should pay priority which is 110 sato per byte.

For Yobit, I'm don't know if you can change the fee or that the administrator will have to adjust
the fee for all withdrawals. If you can set your own fee, then yes, you should set it for your preferred need.

Ok, thank you. Good informations on this site about the transactions and its respective fees.

I usually have no hurry to complete the transactions fast, but I wouldn't like to wait more than 12 hours for it anyway.

that's interesting, i've been having this same problem with some of today's CoinMixer.net transactions.  Several inbound deposits have remained unconfirmed for 12hours or more .. very odd.  Possible dust spam attack on the bitcoin network to flood it with junk transactions is my guess

DAMN !!! finally after 30 hours got 1 confirmation  ;D ;D ;D ;D

Yes, that seems to be the case. I still have transactions pending from oct 25-26 but all which came after that have been confirmed as usual.

Im still paying the  high  priority   fees for  transfering bitcoin into  my wallet   but   it takes  still 12 hours in able to complete  the  confirmation which is  really  frustrating  especially when  you  are  in a  hurry  , i dont  know for  some peopel  who already  been waited for   almost 2 days    of  transaction times, its  very too long  and i dont  think if  the fees  do have  effect   regarding   on the transaction time. The  higher  the better  but still the situation of  some are still the same.

wow, i did not expect to see the 40K+ unconfirmed transactions to persist this long, damn. is there an spam attack on the network? i can't find anything about it anywhere though!

seems like block size must be increased with an urgency now.

What the hell is going on? My transation(fee .0001) got confirmed after 14 hours.

Not really. The mempool has been as high as 190,000 pending txs before. 70,000 is cake-walk.



How many bytes was your tx? Sounds like a very low fee for 14 hours ago.

I think "btc shares" the new faucet that is trending today. I think that faucet is the spam transaction thats because many people use it and they are withdrawing @3500 satoshis thats why many transaction is happening. I was shocked because of 40k unconfirmed transaction.

yes but it never lasted this long.
every time i saw a huge memepool (never seen 190K though apart from the spam attack days) it only lasted half a day tops but it has been 2 days already that memepool is full with ~40K transactions and it doesn't seem to be going down either.

p.s. this is just my random observation of the unconfirmed transactions throughout time, not concrete data analysis!

I noticed mine at around 32 hours with three confirmations, and it had gotten it's first confirmation at 30.5 hours.  I think that that 3 confirmations is needed for the transaction to be "officially confirmed," but the first one is what takes the longest, and usually the next two will come within the next two blocks, generally less than 30 minutes later.

Wow guys, why do you use a little fee like this?

How is the queue system if 2 transactions have the same fee? Olders first?

We got some transactions unconfirmed for more  than 24 hours.

Never happened such things before. I checked transactions, it looks better now.

What are you talking about?  I think that each of us repeated that we had paid decently high fees.

The fee that I paid was the default calculation of the Mycellium wallet of .00085844 BTC (which was about $.56, and about 51 satoshis per byte).

Well im lucky that these unconf. thing happened to me. Yes I could make 10% profit on trading but hey for these 2 days i made solid 7% with the rise of BTC :D so atm i dont care for this problem. Maybe its even good because ppl. cannot sell their BTC what is a reason for demand/supply issues. (price will maybe rise even more)...so again: Sleep and make money :D

Finally my transaction is processed after I am raising the fee ::)

Made another transaction and this time, I raised the fee to a total of 0.000856 and I made the tx at exactly 7 hrs from now, still no confirmation or anything. This is annoying specially for people who wanted to do quick transactions. I just hope that the tx that I made 2 days ago would just be cancelled, and I'll just raise the fees for it to confirm (hopefully) faster.

My last transaction still unconfirmed over 42 hours past now, I don't like the feel of this
way to solve pls?

It's time to change bitcoin wallet . I introduce the coins.ph this is the wallet that use of almost Filipino.

   I`m waiting bitcoins to arrive for more then a half day, its clear to me now why some people are complaining so much about confirmation time. This is annoying as hell. Why they just dont change that 1 mb block size, from reading this comments that can make things works faster and better.
   Or I`m missing the point there, they could change that long time ago. Now with increase of transactions network cant process all that fast enough. When will they change this? Is anyone have some clue about it? Or this will be like this forever?

Can you please provide some details of this transaction like sending address tx ect and i will have a look.
Could just be a low fee paid but the current mem pool size is quite high at the moment, the highest i have seen it in the last 30 days or so.

The slow transaction confirmations will continue until the transactions already tied up in the mem pool are slowly relayed.

I am all for a bigger block size as long as whatever path they take is well tested, i don't know enough on the subject to debate it so i don't try.

The confirmation is very slow. Ive recieved my bitcoin now and It is 40 hours before it arrives on my wallet.  My transaction fee is 0.0001 Highpriority. I am nervous because it might get back on the gambling sites wallet , Im scared cause imy bits are on risk but now its Ok

I doubt that merely changing the size of the block limit is the solution, especially when the apparent issue is a kind of an attack on the network, rather than blockage from actual transactions and organic growth.

There are probably other and better technical solutions, but I happen to not be technical enough to say anything, and really, we have not pinpointed, yet, exactly what is actually causing the transaction delays (what is the nature of the spam attack, this time and is it a recurring theme or is this a new kind of an attack, this time?).

Hi guys,

I hope you can help my newbiness and help me understand what is happen. I used coin mixer.se to tumble some coins, on the coin mixer website it says it 'sent' the coins successfully to my output address many hours ago.

However, no  coins have reached my output address.

What is more worrying for me is that wen I type the output address in the blockchain website, it says 'no transactions found for this address'.
When there has been a delay before, the block chain website at least shows the correct amount of coins heading to that address. However this time there is literally no information.

Should I be worried? Or is this basically what all of you are also going through? coin mixer.se set a randomised fee for me when i did the tumbling participation - so there was no way i could of controlled it or made it higher. I think there is also no way for me to go back and do anything.

Please let me know your thoughts !

Hi. The network is cluttered. If you used the service in the past and things went well you should not be too worried.
If you have a tx id we can see more.

If those transactions don't get confirmed and returned to their senders' wallets, so many shit on its way waiting for us. If bitcoin can be stopped in this way there is no way for that serious business owners will accept bitcoin again for a payment method. I hope it gets fixed soon.

It won't!

It's been like this for a year or so...

If the spam attack ends, the network will be like new until Saturday or Sunday!
But you have a valid point there, the network needs some big fixes, one being to filter out these attacks somehow and quick.
The normal mempool used to be up to 4MB and during the last attack it rose to 40MB.
Devs have to take seriously into account that the world is not nice and shiny, Bitcoin also has enemies and people that try to profit from any weakness they can find.

Hi,


Summary
Address   1CxhsVHTfL1eiGJ7PgF5ZX9V6TtL9Wrxt8
Hash 160   833260e3cadd463e85d630bd7ec27769e0d437ce


The address is the wallet that is supposed to receive the coins . I copied and pasted that from the block chain analysis website. I am not sure what hash 160 is, but hopefully this is all the information you need? If not then let me know where i can get the 'tx id'. Thank you SO much for helping me in advance... yes I have used the coin mixer.se website before and it is usually very good.... but for some reason this time i don't know what is happening. my biggest worry is that when i type the output address in the blockchain website, it is as if nothing has happened.

Sorry, the info you have doesn't help now. The hash 160 is basically the same thing as your address.
The tx id is something the sender should have given you to show it have sent your money.
But since it doesn't show even as "Unconfirmed transaction", the network doesn't know about it yet, so there's no tx id yet.
You...have to wait...

I made a transaction today, with a good fee, and I had to wait like two hours until the first confirmation from the network happened. this is pretty rare.. usually takes 30-40 minutes to get the first confirmation maybe the network is overloaded.
when this happened I could not stop thinking about the problem of bitcoin scalability , and we are probably under a spam attack

I wouldn't say it's constantly been this bad for a year or so but it has always been there and seems to be happening more often these days.

Who's saying that this is a spam attack?

In fact, someone have solid proof of that ? Seeing a peak is not a proof of spam attack.

If it was a spam attack that I should do, I'll use several wallet to send the monimum amount paying the minimum fees, so on the load we gonna see like an explosion of no fees to min fees.

That's not the case here.

Or I'm wrong ? :)

That's right we need tof see solid proof of a spam attack on the network before saying that and it probably wouldn't be too hard to find with the right program, just look for shit loads of small dust transactions.

The charts suggest that. How else could the unconfirmed tx pool jump from 2-4MB range to 40MB?
That's the current part here https://btc.com/stats/unconfirmed-tx

About a week ago there was another bottleneck, some 23MB high iirc, it took 24h to clear up, then all was nice for some days.

Somebody even suggested that miners may do such spam attacks to increase tx fees.
Shame I don't know of a better/longer history of unconfirmed transactions so I have to rely on what I remember (which is proven not to be very accurate for most people).

Do you have a better theory?

You're a liar. 13.1 was released today.

You know just as I do that a Bitcoin client with a 4x blocksize increase is now out, and that they've put months and months of work into it. Why don't you go and troll someone else's months of cutting edge technology work instead, hmmmm?

There is never any proof, short of the person transacting saying "it's a spam attack".

What we do have is an interesting change in transaction behavior reflected in the UTXO set: https://blockchain.info/charts/utxo-count?timespan=60days which coincides with the flood of higher fee transactions starting and stopping.

I could be wrong but I don't think it would be profitable enough and too time consuming for the miners to spam the network just to receive a few higher fees.

I agree to that. It's not the miners.
But I've already seen posts about double spends, for example. Some do profit from this situation and I feel like they're more than usual.
I would still like to hear a better theory for this than the possible spam attack.

Just got a confirmation after 16 hours and i feel lucky, lol

It could easily be "opportunistic piggy-backing", i.e. there is a real surge in transactions taking place due to the buoyancy in the exchange rate we have right now, and a spam artist  decided to use the opportunity to increase the pressure on the mempool.

Either way, it seems to me that it is currently too easy for the network to get overwhelmed. We need a quicker solution than SegWit.

You have to be careful with the fees. I have spent 0.05 in only 20 transactions on fees which is a huge loss and I didn't even notice. Now I am very careful about it and I set 0.0001BTC for every transaction I do. They are usually confirmed in max 1 day.

What's your proposal?

2 days and I'm still here, waiting for just a single confirmation, currently figuring out how to do a double spend in an android wallet. Maybe I won't bother for days or weeks, not sure how long but one thing's for certain: I would not trust dynamic fee setting of the android wallet ever again.

I had requested a withdraw from yesterday and today i waked up and my transaction, with tiny bitcoin and a fee of 20k satoshi has arrived already, soo i do believe the big issue has been clear already yesterday there were 70k transactions today there is just 20k transactions i do hope now all the transactions get confirmed as  before.

In the short-term, a modest increase in the block size.

Then we can see if SegWit/Lightning can be deployed soon enough for adoption not to be hurt due to lack of scalability.

Edit: Just for clarity, I'll add that I don't believe SegWit alone to be enough.

Hmm that site is pretty interesting. I usually go with 0.1$ fees and my transactions confirm within 20 min but site is suggesting almost double that fee for a fast transaction.

Dude. Try to send again another btc to the same address even it is just a small fee. This method works on me. I received immediately my funds stuck for 1 day when i send again few btc on my wallet. I hope it works on your case too.

Unfortunately, your beliefs do not correspond to reality.


Segwit puts a stop to 3rd parties malforming transactions. That means that 2nd layer solutions become possible, where now, they're not. Scaling on the first layer is not going to happen, it simply isn't possible.

The way to handle the 1st layer is to choose a blocksize that represents a compromise between number of network nodes and transaction rate. We're there, right now.



Nodes are at a local low point.

Transactions are at an all time high point.


That means 1st layer is exhausted, and that any attempts to use the 1st layer to increase the transaction rate can only end in the number of Bitcoin nodes decreasing. Have you not researched any of this stuff?

Blocks are probably full due to the price increase. That move surprised all the ant colony and now everyone is rushing ;D !

To be honest , it is starting to become annoying. each day fees change and it becomes more competitive to get a high priority so you have to pay more fees and yet there are still a huge number of unconfirmed transactions waiting to be confirmed!

I had seen forum yesterday like this topic. Don't worry about your transaction problem they will not scammed your Bitcoin.
The reason why its still unconfirmed because maybe have a trouble. But they said that why still unconfirmed because; first, millions of people had registered that wallet so you could expect that in every seconds or minutes many are doing transaction, it's also because your wallet is for worldwide. If they seen your transaction it will be processing for success. So that don't worry, they will fix it. For more information just click here—https://blockchain.info/wallet/bitcoin-faq

that is one of the most big problem of bitcoin, last night i wanted to recharge my mobile but it take a lot of time it really disturb me and i receive the balance on next day.

I think it's not the aim of bitcoin to be instant payment method.

Low fee, maybe.
Decentralized for sure.

Thas just the predicted fee squeeze to kick out low budget usr as spammers and yes we ve been warned about a year ago....

Thanks for your condescending tone!

I believe the risk of not increasing the blocksize modestly (congestion) is greater than the risk of node count lowering (centralisation).

Do you believe 1MB is exactly right? If layer one is really that exhausted then surely we should lower it? I find it funny how so many people say we should not increase, but so few say we should decrease. 1MB was arbitrarily chosen after all.

Right now I see full blocks as a bigger problem than the number of nodes. 2MB or even 4MB gives us enough time for Lightning to be ready.

Someday, any time, somewhere :)


What if behind it is hidden a direct correlation? Price increases, but the majority can not sell because of the fact that they can not move their coins to sell it? So let's say only those who controls all of this can skim the cream...

Please don't clutter up the thread with huge quotes. I hope that meets your expectations on netiquette.


Well, 2MB or 4MB is exactly what the new soft fork in 13.1 is delivering. It's got more support than any of the other forks that weren't adopted, and makes Lightning possible. Without getting rid of sig malforming, Lightning doesn't work.

Only for transaction that meet the SegWit format - we will see how much of a saving it really is if it gets adopted.

Explain, given how it satisfies all your stated expectations, why Segwit shouldn't get adopted. You're sounding a little negative, Scott.

Have another read, where did I say it shouldn't be adopted?

Mempool is empty, thank for your time.
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img924/15/qMnB4u.gif


http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img922/2118/BBRDyn.png

That is good news.

How about where you say "let's increase the blocksize before Segwit". I think you don't really get what the schedule is or what any of it means.


Lol, and the miners say thank you for the fees :D

users cry for a waiting time of 12h and less than 36h.
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img540/841/9vntkI.gif







ask at the bank to do the same job ... try ... http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img633/3096/vxubYe.gif

Low fees (micro payments)
decentralized
secure

Pick 2.

Problem is with bitcoin core at under 90% now and they need 95%to approve Bitcoin unlimited and others have
Stated they will not allow activation of seg witness without a hard fork. This gonna get much worse
On more big pumps in price. Also if that is the case Bitcoin core will lose more share. Stalemate. It is gonna suck without some consensus which I don't see happening

I will agree with you that having transactions delayed is certainly a problem, but the main thing is that they go through, and that the problem is being looked at and assessed and meaningful solutions are being considered and proposed that will address the problem (to the extent that the problem is the same or different or if the attack vector is similar or different).

Your framing this matter as an "emergency" that needs to be fixed right away seems a bit short-sighted, and even bigblocktardy... You know that it is more important that the network is secure and that transactions are ultimately processed than some quick solution is rushed out that potentially either causes additional problems or creates potentially additional attack vectors.

It sounds a bit demanding to bark out orders for devs and suggesting that they better get to work on this right away and a bit patronizing and presumptuous to assert that devs are potentially naive regarding the benevolence of the world in terms of thinking that it is "nice and shiny."

Hi Gmax....

I'm not sure if I understand the significance of the UTXO... Is there a way to phrase the spam versus legitimate transaction significance of such in layman's terms?  It appears that blockchain.info has only been keeping charts of them since May 2016, and in essence we see a ongoing increase in these until just a few days ago with a dip.

I personally thought that the dramatic mempool size increase https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-size?timespan=1week   was a decent indicator to lead to a reasonable inference that shenanigans was going on (in terms of spamming or attempting to sabotage the bitcoin network), rather than legitimate transactions that come out of a kind of organic growth or even normal spikes in regular kinds of transactions.

What is the supposed, "quick solution?"    Segwit is out, and it has been vetted.. You want to change the course because of some kind of asserted need for quickness?  I would think that it is better for solutions to be considered and vetted rather than rushed because of some kind of urgent and unsubstantiated need that could cause additional problems or attack vectors and may well not fix the supposed problem, no?

You are sounding overly pessimistic, Searing. 

As we know segwit just went live, and it would be economically against the interest of the miners to play around with bullshit leveraging of a fairly non-controversial fix and a positive implementation.  The ones that attempt to hold out are likely hypocrites and also acting as terrorists (or is "hostage takers" a better term?) in order to attempt to get their whinny way about something (a hard blocksize limit increase) that is not necessary or even beneficial for bitcoin.

And you can erase the main protagonist ... with the natural rise of the network (mining power) after (very) few months.
http://bitcoin.sipa.be/

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img921/9167/1BzGFf.png

No. Your post is based on the completely wrong assumption that I demand this to be handled as emergency.
I didn't demand and I didn't say it's an emergency.
Read again. I said "take seriously into account". That means "OK, this is something that should get onto the ToDo list at some point too".
I know that they have their schedule and I know that they are busy with segwit which may improve some things.
I also know that pushing them brings nothing. And you know that too.

As opposed to many people in here, which think that Bitcoin is a coin and has to be used as a coin, I still think of it as an asset.
So for me the speed is not a big issue yet. However, many think that Bitcoin should be used as a word wide currency, paying for goods in shops, which, with the current problems, is just a nice dream yet.
...just my 0.00000002BTC

You seem to be quibbling over minor and non-sensical points, and in other words attempting to get defensive rather than standing behind the gist of what you said and the tone in which you said it.  Makes little sense to me that we should attempt to get caught up in parsing words rather than talking about the essence without any need to get defensive... I am not attempting to personally criticize or attack you, but I am attempting to look into the ramifications and the meaning of what you had asserted.









O.k.  I surely would phrase it a little bit differently, but it could still be that in some senses we agree.   

The essence of the matter is that any changes take time, and we should be able to agree that we do not want to jump into making changes that merely cause more problems or that are controversial concerning what benefits they are going to bring.

The fact of the matter is that Seg wit was largely not very controversial.  In December 2015 / January 2016, more or less, guys on both sides of the fence were largely in agreement that seg wit was a good idea and brought a lot of good changes and improvements to bitcoin. 

Surely, in recent times, there has been some revisionary framings of the matter and some smaller factions (including some of the big blocker nut jobs) that are suggesting stupid ass ideas that they are wanting to block seg wit unless they can get a blocksize limit at the same time.. blah blah blah .. bullshit and threats of a kind of hostage taking.


The fact of the matter also is that the various proposals to increase the blocksize limit have remained controversial, and those making the proposals have not been very convincing regarding such a change is actually prudent or justified in any kind of meaningful way.  In otherwords, they have failed to meet any kind of burden of proof regarding actual factual evidence and they have failed to meet any kind of burden of persuasion regarding logic...   

So, yeah, if at some point, there is a need for a block size limit increase, and the burden of proof and persuasion is met concerning the need for it, then at that point the bridge should be crossed (or at least considered to be crossed).  We are a long way from having any kind of consensus regarding taking any other steps, besides seg wit, at this point.





O.k... so it could have been that I read too much into what you were saying, yet whether bitcoin is a coin or an asset or a combination of these things, it still does not seem wise to push anything, and make some kind of stupid-ass mistake that messes up the security of bitcoin or even causes a situation in which it can be easily manipulated.   

In this regard, difficulties in changing bitcoin is a really good thing, especially since out of the gate there was a lot of already real good features and incentives that has caused a very valuable network that is currently securing more than 10billion dollars and also supporting a pretty decent sized infrastructure that has been growing around it.

I say fuck off to those multiple arguments suggesting that bitcoin should be more easy to change in order to be able to adapt to the times, blah blah blah.. because in the end, bitcoin has already brought it's value and paradigm change in which there is no (NONE) system that even approaches anything close to its secure decentralized value transfer and storage.. I repeat, NONE.  So, why screw with a good thing.  There are a whole hell-of-a-lot of innovations coming down the pike that are going to take a while to play out.. but bitcoin remains a system that can be built upon, and in the longer run, folks are going to flock to this better mouse trap.. but it could take a while before joe blow realizes that bitcoin is the shit and bitcoin is the better mouse trap and there is no mouse trap like it and never has been a mouse trap like it.  The peaking of over 2 petahashes of computing power is surely demonstrating that bitcoin has the capability to continue to stave off attacks and to secure value as the backbone, and systems can be built upon it (at a second layer level).





I agree with you that these kinds of micro- currency applications are going to come with time, and we do not need to rush into them because there are more important things (and that is the security of the network and the value security overall).. In time, there are going to be all kinds of systems that are going to allow for micro transactions and even volume transactions, but those are going to take time to evolve to take place on top of bitcoin.. whether on the chain itself or at a second or third level through various layers on top of the underlying secure, decentralized and immutable system, aka our lillie fiend bitcoin.   ;)

Wow, quite a long text...


I felt your answer as an attack. And this was my way to react.



I am not great on explaining my thoughts and my primary language is not English, so there are things that get badly "lost in translation".
But you felt it right. While I can't say I'm a big fan of increasing the block size (for example I feel like dynamic value could be a better approach), the overall feeling was that Bitcoin devs are afraid to do changes (Any changes. And this is bad and scary.). Especially as there was another change requested and that didn't happen either (sadly I don't remember what was that). I know that it was more talk and politics and the decision is the one hard to do, not as much the code.

I've just read today about the segwit release (although it will take more time until it will be active) and I became happy. A big change did happen finally.


I've seen these arguments a lot of times (stability is better than changes). And they are 99% valid. (The number of petahashes are more related to businesses earning big bucks from mining imho, not with how sturdy or useful Bitcoin is)
And I will come back to these spam attacks (or whatever they are). They show that Bitcoin is not perfect yet and it has to be improved further. And for that Bitcoin has to be changed, however difficult it is.
And yes, I know that such things cannot happen overnight, but as long as they are on an agenda, it's OK.


It's not me who asks for this (for me, if a transaction happens in 1-2 days is fine), it's the "general public" that starts to grow impatient.
You know, I feel like most would like to have the speed and fees of Dogecoin, but the price and network power of Bitcoin.
Maybe segwit will bring some fresh air into all this. We seem to need it.

Transaction time 1-2 days -> you can use bank tx..

High fees. -> you can use bank tx...


Block size usage to hard limit  ratio = 1 ->. There will be always cheap spam attacks possible ( why not launched by bank supporters?) so bank txs are not spammable.  -> you can use bank tx...

Wake up guys and fix it and reinstall some of the most important bitcoin features.

This thread is very technical. Can someone dumbify it? So point us to a blockchain for dummies. Because, currently I have had transactions that we're stuck in the blockchain for two days already.

if you have a particular question you should open up a new topic about it. but if your problem is with not getting confirmed "yet" then i am sure you have not included enough transaction fees because the problem this talking was talking about is already solved.
check bitcoinfees.21.co for more information.

I gotta admit, I Agree. lol.
Oh well.
Anyway, luckily, have yet to encounter one where a transaction of mine doesn't confirm or takes hours and even days. Can imagine how frustrating that would be though. Be it blockchain,coinbase, xapo, no delays yet. Longest was probably close to an hour. I just usually follow the recommended fee or so. *Just sharing.*  ^^

Regarding language:   Whether you are a native English speaker or not, you are correct that it is possible that sometimes ideas or tone can come out in a funny and/or inaccurate way in writing.  So, I understand that sometimes it may take a few interactions back and forth before working out what we are saying.

Also, involvement in these forums can also be a kind of learning process, so we may tweak and or adjust our ideas, as well by interacting with others and learning some of the perspectives of other folks.






Regarding dynamic value:  What is that?   There is no one in charge of establishing the value of bitcoin, and therefore the value of it is whatever the market will bear.  Different people come to different assessment of value, and different assessments about whether bitcoin is over valued or undervalued based on a lot of the things that are going on, and no one really has perfect information.  In the end, people and companies have varying levels of information, and some are going to approach their investment in different ways that are profitable - whether predicting the price to go up or down and whether they buy into it short term or long term.  Also, manipulation is going on and attempts to push the price based on information and disinformation and using the exchanges, so there is a lot going on that affects value based on what is already there in existence and what is anticipated to be coming down the pike.






I think that the big blocker proponents and those folks who are pushing for change sometimes seem to get caught up on changes for the sake of changes and want to get rich and think that the solution is big blocks etc.

In other words, there is a lot of mischaracterizing of the position of devs.  Seg wit is a big change, and it likely takes a lot of work to implement.

The thrust of the matter is that the big block change has not been convincing to be an actually necessary change without downsides.. Furthermore, some of the early proposals regarding blocksize limit changes were coupled with changes in governance.. and to make bitcoin easier to change in the future (changing consensus).  The agenda was somewhat hidden and not merely focused on technical solutions, but instead attempts to make bitcoin easier to change which is neither necessary and would have been dangerous and possibly the downfall of bitcoin...

I am glad that there are enough devs out there who recognized the underlying coupe of the big blocker agenda.




Part of the issue and maybe even part of the underlying dynamics of this thread is whether there is an emergency.  


Yeah, we have some uncertainties that come about with unconfirmed transactions and sudden delays in transactions, but is that such an emergency to rush out some change that could potentially undermine the whole of bitcoin and make it vulnerable to either getting coins stolen or creating backdoors or bloating (is the problem that is fixed greater than the problems that could be created?)







Of course there is some politics as well when we are talking about money, but you seem to be suggesting politics as merely personal battles.... yeah, people like to characterize these matters as personal battles, but the fact of the matter still remains that there is already a consensus plan in place involving seg wit, and there is a failure to reach consensus regarding blocksize limit increases... despite the loud voices of various whiners who are really a minority - not the majority that they claim to represent.





Yeah, but we have known about seg wit for nearly a year, and it had been being worked on.  Code was initially put on the testnet in April and May.. so these kinds of things take time and it is a process.  The process is not done.  There are going to continue to be battles.  There are going to continue to be sabotage attempts.  There are going to continue to be folks trying to say seg wit is too complicated.  There are continuing to be proponents to increase the blocksize limit and to change bitcoin's governance.

At the same time, seg wit seems to be a very great development that is progressing well and going to bring a lot of good things to bitcoin, even if it does not bring everything that everyone wants, but as individuals we figure out how we are going to approach it, how we are going to use it and how much of our value we are going to store with it (investing into bitcoin).





You can characterize the petahashes any way that you like, but it is a big ass system of computers that are involved and invested into bitcoin and seem, for the time being, to be securing the network and the coin.  Anyone can get into mining, and surely now you need a lot more capital than you needed a few years ago, but it still remains competitive and decentralized.  Even governments could get into developing mining systems and attempting to influence the direction of bitcoin, who knows how it is going to develop, exactly, but it seems to continue to go up to the extent that folks in mining continue to see bitcoin mining as profitable or potentially a good way to secure coins and/or attempts at control of the process.

The incentives are created to earn big bucks, so I am not sure why you seem to be criticizing it for being what it is incentivized to do.  People (and companies) will try to be creative and try to figure out how to earn "big bucks" from bitcoin mining, and to the extent that they feel that they are not earning "big bucks" or that they can earn "bigger bucks" in other ways, they will get out of mining, no?

Security results from the incentives to earn big bucks, and bitcoin is attempted to be designed around such incentives and not trusting anyone to attempt to undermine the system... Is bitcoin perfectly designed?  Are there going to be ways to exploit and undermine it or sabotage it?  Surely there have been a lot of attempts to undermine it in a variety of ways, and since we do not know the future exactly, we invest in accordance to the level of faith that we have that the system is secure or is going to remain secure and since there are various increasing ways to get in and out of bitcoin, we can get in or out or reapportion if we believe that bitcoin is overvalued or undervalued (whether that assessment is based on our concerns about security or centralization or whatever).





From my distorted layman's perspective, I thought that seg wit was going to potentially bring some more tools in terms of how to deal with spam attacks and what kinds of attacks were possible, but surely, it could also open up some new attack vectors, as well.

I think that there have been folks working on plugging up attack vectors in bitcoin since 2009, and surely the more valuable it gets, sometimes the more resources that may be expended in order to attempt to attack it.  This is not any kind of centralized committee in which some folks can tell other folks what to do or even that they are necessarily rewarded for sealing up an attack vector.  Seems to be a lot of unrewarded work when it comes to developing (and coding), and yeah there are some public faces and announcements, too, but efforts to propose code and address issues is voluntary, too... and likely all over the place in terms of the amount of code proposed and the vetting of the code and time to do each of these processes.





Yes, I know this too.  There are a lot of expectations in bitcoin, including the expectation that it should provide services similar to credit cards (which seems a bit unrealistic at this point).  But many of these kinds of micropayment things are likely to be developed and to evolve in bitcoin.. even though at the time  being, micropayments may not be the best use case for bitcoin or even realistic in terms of current expectations.





debates and controversy and differences of opinion and perspectives is not going to go away.

The debates may seem stronger in certain forums, but does not mean that they are even reflective of various uses of bitcoin and various choices that people make regarding when or if to buy bitcoin and how much to buy, if at all.

Of course we can use banks for various reasons.  We weigh our options and we choose which to use based on a variety of factors. 

Bitcoin provides some things that banks don't provide, correct? 

We have expectations regarding bitcoin in the present, as compared with banks and future expectations, too.  So we may take a position in bitcoin and watch its development based on our investment and the direction that we think either is going in respect to the other, no?
 



Wake up who?

Who to fix what?  What are they to fix?  What is broken?

What are "the most important features" in bitcoin and had those "most important features" been 'uninstalled?"  Who did it?  Did they do it in the dead of the night or based on consensus?

I m  happy for today and want to thank you a lot since I have some faint idea now about spam...
I very hope SW comes along with BU features and we can be happy for next years!

As long as the absolute value of your transaction is high enough, the relative value-to-fee ratio stays low even if you have to go over 100 sat/B.

However, lower value transactions will become more and more affected as the race for block space goes on.

Yep and you will only know after if you fall into the 'spammer bin' or not. Come on what a crap is that?

And, you've said nearly nothing with your snarky assertions.

Not true. You can know before you send your tx.
Just check the mempool and calculate the fees yourself before sending.

Bitcoin is the only "personal responsibility" payment and storage system that exists
and you are choosing to defer that responsibility for convenience. That is true crap.

Its getting problem almost 3 days my withdraw in ccex is not comfirm that time i really need money so that i withdraw it tuesday evening but it comfirm it yesterday morning that is the worst thing happen that 3 days before the bitcoin comfirm.

You can try a double spend, just send the same value with a higher fee, well, if you have more bitcoins in your wallet, of course.

And well, why do you used a low fee?

If you took the time and effort to read his post, then you would know that he has withdrawn coins from C-CEX, which means that there is no way for him to initiate a double spend transaction with higher fees.

If what he says is true, then the exchange is the one to be blamed as they most likely included a very poor fee.

That's why I find it a much better idea if people are given the option to up the fees at the time they perform a withdrawal. So far none of the exchanges I have used has done this.

These do happen every once in a while, when there are spending attacks or sometimes just like that when there is plenty of txs and the block mining is slow, there is no thing much you can do other than using high fees and waiting for blocks I guess.

I have the sense that this thread was not really about solving the transaction delays from a few days ago with a larger fee, even though some posters had been proposing that providing a higher fee could have partially solved their transaction delay issue.

I doubt that providing a higher fee would have solved the issue from a few days ago, because it seems as if the problem of the delays during that period was due to  some kind of spam attack on the network that delayed ALL transactions on almost an equal basis and no matter what the fees.  Sure, there may have been some outlier transactions that got processed, but for the most part, NO transactions were being processed. 

After about 30 hours, once the attack seemed to have been over (or addressed or gotten under control), then transactions began to go through and the back log of the mempool came back down to more normal levels, which came down pretty fast (about 12 hours or so), and thereafter transaction times returned to taking well under 1 hour with normal or even relatively low fees.

Hmm, I just want the lowest fees again, Yobit increased the fee to 50K satoshis on that day. Don't know exactly if the delays happened because the excess of Bitcoin users or because the spam attackers, as you said now.

If it was an attack, the system would be better protect against this practice.

May be he didn't knew that the problem will be like this. If usually he can send bitcoin with low transactions fees, he never guess that the transaction will pending untill 3 days.
So from this problem, for the next transaction you can additional some more few cent fees to hasten your bitcoin confirmed.

First, fees are fairly dynamic, and they really are not very high - especially if you actually consider what bitcoin is and how much value you can transfer for a relatively low fee.  On the other hand, if you are transferring smaller values (let's say below $100), then the percentage of your transfer spent on fees is going to seem higher.   Fees are also something that you can frequently adjust to your level of urgency, and there a whole hell of a lot of folks who are paying lower than average fees and still having their transactions go through.



Second, I think that if you look at the mempool chart, it should be pretty obvious that the spike upwards and the spike downwards was not a product of "organic growth."

https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-size?timespan=1week

Third, as we understand bitcoin is both open source and a dynamic project that does not specifically reward contributors.  Accordingly, there have been a lot of attack vectors, and some of those attack vectors get sealed up and sometimes new attack vectors are discovered.  There can also be a certain level of balancing that causes some acceptance of attacks because sealing up some of the attack vectors would cost too much on users (for example some attack vectors could be sealed up by making fees higher and mandatory, but a large majority of folks will recognize that approach would not be good for the fundamentals of bitcoin).  So, yeah, there are ongoing efforts to attempt to protect against various attacks and even to identify if there is a decent way to deal with some attack vectors or to leave them alone because it would cost too much to attempt to seal such attack vectors with whatever remedy(ies) is (are) currently being proposed.

Sometimes, Confirmations take a long duration.
I think, It's proportional with the amount of btc transferred
Anyways, At the end, It will be confirmed.

It's proportional to the number of "pending transaction", not the amount of BTC. ;)
 https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions