Bitcoin Forum

Wow ,almost 30,000 unconfirmed trans now

Are the miners sleeping? LOL

Something strange is happening, unusualy large number of transactions is not confirmed. Like the network is stuck. I agree that it would be good that community tries to do something about it but would realy this BoyCott BTC on 24 hours solve the problem? The aswer probably lies in the cause of this problem. Do we know exactly what it is?

Sounds like trying to kill the currency that we want to move forward!
If the users stop using it, then why will it have value?

There are problems to be solved, but a boycott could adversely effect the future of BTC

24 hours to send a message , you think BTC is that weak.
No one said they could not trade on the exchanges, just don't transmit any BTC in or out for 24 hours.

 8)

This is what happens when people refuse to increase the block size. This issue would have never occurred, had the miners adopted a block size limit of 8 MB. The current limit of 1MB is too small to cope with the increasing number of users.

I Think the huge amount of transactions makes the transactions slow, This is not good, We all know that the advantage of using bitcoins was its fast and hassle free, then now it was too much delay, i also have two receiving transactions in my coinbase wallet. Too bad because it was already 48 hours but until now it was receiving.

This is what happens when people refuse to decrease the block generation interval. This issue would have never occurred, had the miners adopted a block generation time a quarter of the current interval. The current interval is too long to cope with the increasing number of users, and an increasing requirement for almost instant confirmations.

Yes, I have seen it that it was more than 50,000 unconfirmed transaction and keeps on adding. I am also puzzeled whether we lack miners or it is due to not exact fees per bytes that keeps them less priority.

It's not about miners, it's about the increase in the number of transactions. I don't know if it's some sort of spam attack or a mark of Bitcoin success.
There are days they are much more than the current architecture can handle.
Top size of mempool in the last 2-3 days was 44 MB, now it's some 33 MB. https://btc.com/stats/unconfirmed-tx

I have high hopes that in a couple of weeks, when SegWit will be actually in use, this will not happen anymore (for long time, hopefully).

SegWit will not even work unless 95% of the miner hash implements it.
One mining pool with 8% hash has stated they will block SeWit, and want BTC unlimited instead.


 8)

95% is a huge number. I don't know the data, but I really hope the you are wrong. Because then this will take a (too) long time to get traction...
And BTC unlimited.. is an altcoin. If they want to mine altcoin, nobody forces them to stay on this chain....
And if they leave this chain, their 8% doesn't matter anymore.

Not the altcoin but a proposal for blocksize is also called BTC unlimited, I can see how that is going to confuse people.  :P
http://www.investopedia.com/news/what-bitcoin-unlimited/


Sorry it is 95%.
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/10/27/segwit-upgrade-guide/


 8)

FYI:
A hard fork would have only require 60% or 70% to make the switch.  :P

95% is correct, but as you say, 8% of the hashrate is a moveable feast. kiklo is currently trolling Bitcoin every chance there is, in favour of some altcoin he's promoting. Not sure if Zeitcoin is any good, not looked at it.

With around 30,000 unconfirmed transactions and Seggregated Witness far away from reaching atleast 95% of the miners support, I'm guessing it's going to be several months before Seggregated Witness comes into play and it worries me if the mempool's small block size is going to have a short term impact on the price. Also, I really hope that there's some initiative taken to get miners to vote for Seggregated Witness so that atleast temporarily transactions are confirmed quicker.

What makes you think 'several months' before it comes into play? Technically it could come in December if the miners started signalling it right now.

This statement is poorly written. Confirmation time will not change because of Segwit, nor has confirmation time changed because of the mempool spike. The average confirmation time will always be 10 minutes. Segwit will enable higher throughput, i.e. it should *prevent* this from happening less frequently and help with clearing backlogs more quickly. However, even that does not prevent an attacker that wants to play politics from spamming up the network and blaming the developers for the situation.

The mempool and the blockchain are separate storage structures.

Transactions are created and placed into the mempool of the Bitcoin user who created them. The Bitcoin peers connected to that user receive that transaction and place it in their mempool. The mempool can be as big as the user likes, there is a setting that allows you to change it.


The blocks are where the transactions are stored after they've been confirmed. When that happens, a given transaction is removed from the mempool once a block containing that transaction is received by a given user's Bitcoin node. There is no setting to change the block size, the blocksize is part of the consensus rules (mempool size is not).



It takes time to activate soft-forks, that's just how it is (all other soft forks in the past had 95% per 2016 block period activation thresholds IIRC). I'd much prefer that it takes as long as possible, that way there's more opportunity to correct any mistakes.

Is the system under attack again or it is happening because of the miners? Even if a small portion of those transactions dont get confirmed, bitcoin will be dead for good. I hope devs got a solution for that kind of an attack.

What are you talking about? That is false. If your transaction ends up *stuck*, you do not lose Bitcoin nor does anything bad happen. Eventually the network drops it and you can create a transaction with a bigger fee (you could attempt RBF via Electrum right away, but I do not know which miners support that).

Uh, a small portion of those transactions have not been confirmed, the way the mempool code works in version 0.12 + kicks unconfirmed transactions out of the pool all the time. Bitcoin appears to still be alive though :)

All that drama, its "just" 60-70k on my node, we hit 80k last month ~10/27. Bitcoin with 1 MB blocksize and no further additions like e.g. SegWit will be unable to handle the demand from time to time. Get ready to pay even higher fees or learn to be patient. (Bitcoin) Black Friday and Christmas are coming, this is just a hint at what will come soon.

The same thing happened over a year ago (namely, in July, 2015). There were also thousands of unconfirmed transactions stuck with almost empty blocks popping up on the blockchain now and then. I didn't hear a viable explanation of that event apart from that it was a test for "Bitcoin limits". Though it looked more like a collusion between miners demanding higher fees...

And people still continue to insist that there can be none


That may be a good pretext

It seems you don't have a smallest clue about how bad that can be turned out.

Let's say i wanted to buy something from a seller. I sent him bitcoins. He saw the transaction with the highest priority and shipped my purchased stuff to me.

But somehow, the transaction didn't confirm!!!

And what happens if i am not willing to pay again?

Who's got fucked?

That was what i meant. It will definitely kill bitcoin. Nobody will trust it again.

False. Anyone who believes that zero confirmation transactions are safe is either very misinformed, ignorant or delusional (or other?). Regardless of the situation with the network, accepting such transactions always carries a certain risk. I'm pretty sure merchants do not evaluate the TX priority. When dealing with non trivial amounts, anonymous people and such you should always wait for at least a singular confirmation. For example, trying to cheat Steam like this is ludicrous as they know who you are and can completely block your account for fraud.

---

Note: There is no *fix* to this. Even if the block size was 100 times larger, the network could still be flooded (regardless of whether they are genuine transactions, academic research or just malicious spam).

Thank you for the long and interesting read, but as long as it's not supported by the official dev team, that's still an altcoin, whatever some say.


Thanks for the support. Yes, it's not only the pool manager that counts, it's also the miners. And the miners will go wherever there's more money to be milked. (ZCash short history is the latest example on that.)
Still, 95% is a big number, and worrisome...



I tend to agree with deisik here. If the number of unconfirmed transactions would keep growing, then yes, it's the network that cannot support Bitcoin's success.
But the reality tells that there are some strange waves now and then (which I keep thinking that they may be some sort of spam attack), then everything is calm for days and weeks until another tsunami comes.

Friday (18th) with less than 35 sat / byte my transaction got confirmed in some 30 minutes. Monday and yesterday that would not happened...
I will even watch the network for the next window I can send a transaction with 1000 satoshi fee ;)


Usually they are badly misinformed. It's not that hard to get to believe that all is good when blockchain.info shows the transaction (even if red and unconfirmed).

30,000 is just so small rather this last month unconfirmed transactions that reach 70,000+. And I guess the main reason is the rapidly increasing of bitcoin price thus when bitcoin price increase transaction fee will increase too thats why the first transaction will be unconfirmed because it will not match the transaction fee that the current price have.

Caesar's wife must be above suspicion

I don't really know how much the next Bitcoin update (SegWit?) could actually help matters in this respect (everyone is welcome to chime in on this), but could it be one of the miners' subtle ways of telling us all to switch to it as quickly as possible? Forcing the update the hard way, so to speak. Or refrain from switching to it altogether. What is the current consensus about what's going on?

Segwit benefits (https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/). Segwit adoption. (https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/) Without going into the details and only mentioning the part relevant to this thread, it should increase the throughput to around ~1.7-2x of what we currently have. In other words, a block size limit of 1.7 - 2 MB (depends on the user usage patterns).

No. The miners have to be the ones to update to Segwit since it is a soft fork. It's backwards compatible so users technically do not need to upgrade, but then they won't be able to *enjoy* its benefits.

Yeah, kiklo is a well known altcoin troll. Almost all of the professional anti-SegWit trolls and UnlimitedCoin worshippers are heavily active in the altcoin world. That's not surprising, because all they hope is to destabilize Bitcoin for that their altcoins become more valuable. Their guru, Roger Ver, serves as a role model, manufacturing dissent by repeating the same FUD over and over again out of pure self interest (generating a quick fiat buck).

Any intelligent individual can clearly see the tremendous benefits SegWit brings and that it's a greatly superior solution for scaling Bitcoin than simple max block size increases, which are a viable threat for the decentralization of the network.

The obstructionist efforts of the Andresen/Hearn/Ver-clan will collapse sooner than they are anticipating. But maybe Roger Ver's motive is even more profane: Profiting from insider trading, by publicly announcing the end of his futile opposition at a certain point in time to spark a price jump.

ya.ya.yo!

Its probably people just trying to spam with network with minuscule transactions with 0 fees, Itll clear up eventually.

False. Please do research before posting or not not post at all.

https://i.imgur.com/3V55qmX.png

---

Full information can be found here (https://bitcoinfees.21.co/).

And how's that going to work for bitcoin with a half ass working network?

People keep dreaming about using bitcoin in their daily life yet it craps out by a network flood.

I wouldn't accept bitcoins if i were a fastfood franchise owner or another business something like that one. (grab and go)

Are people going to wait for hours to get their transactions confirmed before they leave walmart? Ridiculous.

IRL transactions don't work very well with Bitcoin, you're not telling us anything new. May I suggest you do something productive with your outrage, as what your doing now is commonly referred to as a "tantrum".

I am not an expert in mining or bitcoin transaction issues but I genuinely think that this is just a matter of high traffic and appeals like boycott btc would work nicely if supported by everyone or at least most of the bitcoin users. Paying higher transaction fees might not work so we must give something on our individual level so I support boycott btc movement. No one should get panic because this is a temporary issue and will resolve soon.

Hope it'll not get more so we have to pay higher fees. I do a lot of micro payments like 1$ and have to pay 0,1$ in fees sometimes. :/

Thanks for linking this site again. The graphical overview is useful for determining the right fee depending on the desired confirmation time. It would be nice to have a similar feature for Bitcoin Core (I know there's already a pullbar to increase transaction fees, but it's not as useful as this overview).

The overview quite clearly shows that there is a large percentage of transactions in the mempool with very low fees (1-10 Sat/byte). So if you ask me, Hugroll is partly right. You can still get very fast confirmation by paying highly reasonable >80 Sat/byte, which normally are just a few cents per transaction.

I know that all seasoned frappuccino purchasers will hate me for this comment... :D

ya.ya.yo!

I believe the miners are waiting for people to increase their transaction fees - but then no one wants to pay more money...

are the blocks full or are the miners getting greed with the transaction fee?

or someone send thousants of transactions at once?

i just want to add that spam attack he probably had heard and now is talking about is about the old spam attack that was happening (it was never with 0 fee) instead it was with lots of transactions with minimum fee. if i remember correctly it was 0.0001BTC with 0.0001BTC amount of fee.

Calm down. It seems that there are plenty of misconceptions due to lack of technical knowledge. Bitcoin can not remain decentralized and process Visa-like amounts on chain unless there are some breakthroughs. Just run the math yourself:
Visa does 2000 TPS on average. Let's say that their daily peak is 4k. That is over 1300 times higher than Bitcoin. We are talking about 1.3 GB blocks here.

That's where things like LN come into play. Those TXs are instant and there are no confirmations.

Please do not post then. The boycott Bitcoin *movement* is a bad joke.

There are two problems with this post: False assumption and hasty generalization fallacy. 'No one wants to pay 30 cents to transfer $1m right?' ::)

Looks mostly full to me -> https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/blocks/1

I believe that the price per Bitcoin is high enough to cover the values these guys are getting, as when the price was $250, then too these guys were getting profits when the fee were 0.0001, so currently it's x3, so I don't think that they are getting less for the transactions, right???

For the most part the blocks are full. https://blockchain.info/ (https://blockchain.info/)

Initiated a transaction w/ high fees 3 hours ago and still not 1 confirm. THis really gets old...

TX ID?

dunno, maybe people are preparing to the black friday?

most stores will start black friday sooner, like Steam, that is about to start now

So when the ill grandpa Bitcoin will die ?

80c0b5a9011ab164c1bd23330ce25eb1bbfe5ca697526667856ea5d0f1512166

Doesn't seem like the market cares. The price for a bitcoin is still very high.

Is there a risk that these transactions will be deleted? and in that case, what happens to the bitcoins that I was suppose to receive?

Since version 0.12, all transactions in the mempool longer than 72 hours are removed. All transactions that are kicked out of the mempool of a node are then rejected by that node if another node tries to relay it to them again, although presumably there's a limit to the rejection period.

The money in those cases just remains with the sender, the receiving address can't access an output that was never confirmed.

The quantity of users are increasing so are the transactions, and the block size (as some people say) right now not enough to take the load, and the miners have rejected to accept a larger block size which results more unconfirmed transactions.
Hopefully it gets solved soon.

its very hateful news for us because being the most use coin all over the world it is lagging in miners. one of my friend was also got trapped in this unconfirmed list. and myself was also a victim of the same. i was very tensed because my money was not getting verified.

It would be nice if these signature spammers stopped posting here. Being tensed (^) because your money does not verify quickly implies a lack of knowledge. Nothing will happen to your coins if they do not confirm.

Some are even empty, although their percentage has been dropping. The miners tehnically decide whether they want to include TXs.

This is the second time that happens since the halving had occured, something must be done for clean those transactions, its getting clear that bitcoin need the changes. The last time i remember it had reached something like 70k transactions unconfirmed, this cant keep happening with bitcoin, even knowing there are more people using bitcoin, but this require attention.

my transaction is now gone

https://blockchain.info/tx/34ec67c5b4500190f62de88f8f8e59105722aba76b23a26f97af4e4285207f2b
Transaction rejected by our node. Reason: Transaction was previously accepted but has been pruned from our database.


i lost the bitcoins.... really the worst piece of )(&%!#¤=)/(&?)=R#¤

I would not call 35 Satoshi per Byte a high fee. Ill rebroadcast it, let me know (best via PM) when its confirmed please.

No, that can not be correct. Are you using blockchain.info? Contact their support, get this fixed and stop using such a bad wallet. Use one of the desktop SPV wallets (e.g. Electrum) if you do not want to run Bitcoin Core.

The blocks are almost never full. Below is the average block size chart for the last (https://blockchain.info/en/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=30days&showDataPoints=true) 30 days, with points corresponding data on the given day. The fill-up ratio increased somewhat over the baseline during the last few days, but nearly identical situation was about a month ago. And I don't remember people complaining about their transactions not being confirmed on time back then...

http://s020.radikal.ru/i722/1611/ff/68b429e7a2a8.jpg

Looks more like miners are deliberately ignoring some of the transactions


The same story was a year and a half ago, as I wrote earlier

So that's the reason my transaction was stuck almost for 24 hours, the exchanger canceled the order and I started to panic (a little). Luckily it eventually confirmed and we were able to sort things out with the merchant. Oh and I did pay the recommended fee that Blockchain.info automatically adds to the transactions!

You don't want to look at the average block size. What you want to look at is the median block size.

Every day there are 10 or so empty blocks, they distort the average block size chart making an impression that blocks aren't full. These empty blocks must be discarded from the data, they never include transactions. Median block size is very close to 1 MB and has been for a number of months.

This should be stickied IMO:

Blockchain.info doesn't always contain good info about the blockchain. It's been unreliable in various ways for years now.

Does it gives that reasonable doubt about those speculation before that thse 50% of the mining power is on the centralized area?(you know what i already mean lol i just dont want to point out)

 Could it be the massive control of the said mining power on a single area?
Experts do talk about it

This remains to be seen

If we have 24x6=144 blocks mined daily (a new block every 10 minutes on average), of which 134 blocks are full (1) and 10 blocks are empty (0), then we should have had an arithmetic average of the fill-up ratio at around (134*1+10*0)/144=0.93. As you can see from the chart, there were only 5 such days during the last month, while the average ratio for the whole month is still somewhere around 0.8 (with ~0.6 being the lowest value). That pretty much proves that the blocks are far from being full even if we count only filled blocks (with more than one transaction)

60k+ unconfirmed transactions currently and still rising. Hope Issue gets solved soon.....

30.000?

I'm seeing 62.000 and going up...

What is this? Big miners aren't processing transactions with small fees?

That's a big challange the the coin!

60,000  now ,

any higher history?

Unfortunately this happens at times. Let's hope they are simply a large amount of spam transactions and not the mining pools trying to force higher fees by not including transactions into their blocks..

If the latter is the case, they are actually harming their business in the long run, which is very short sighted imo.

These signature spammers are really obvious here. You do not need to constantly post updates. Anyone can find this information on several websites (including blockchain.info).

There is no permanent solution. Adopting Segwit would give the network short term 'relief'.

Can i buy an Antminer S9, and manually set it to confirm my transaction??

You can. It would be both quicker and cheaper to pay a higher fee though.

I am the receiver of the transaction. The sender was the one that put the low fee.
Unfortuantly I gave him fiat before the transaction was confirmed.

Is it perhaps possible to ask someone with an antminer to verify the transaction? I'll give some extra btc for the effort

second day in a row almost same amount of unconfirmed tx :(
60.000 ish and staying this way
now if you want to transfer,fee is ridiculous
if you send with regular,chances are you play this special miner's lottery and prepare to wait for hours

One important thing you could do is to keep a copy of the raw transaction, and re-broadcast the hell out of it for as long as possible. Another is to contact people that have access to mining pools, they can get it included in one of their blocks (likely for a fee). Bitcointalk members Quickseller and macbook-air are often described as people in that position, but I don't know that for a fact.

It seems there is a spam attack going, what they do is send massive amounts of useless transactions to boat the blockchain in order to push a certain agenda, probably backed up by millionaires like Roger Ver whose are on record saying that he would pay miners to push the software that he likes, sad to see. Too bad he is just burning money since Core remains the better software and will not lose.

It's frustrating now. My transaction of just 373 bytes is pending for over 24 hours with a fee of 0.0001 BTC. Usually it takes less than an hour to get confirmed but the network seems like dead now and no transaction is getting confirmed. I thought that the problem is that my fee is small but even other transactions are pending.

False. The network is not dead and transactions are processing in similar quantities as usually. Your fee is too low. If I am correct, your TX has a fee that is at least 2 times lower than recommended.

https://blockchain.info/tx/1b2b6d5692df0b166e383de46947efe0c5f35044eed9d8d4df0ffb1546304993

The recommended fee was about 0.00012-0.00014 and I entered a fee of 0.0001. All my transactions with a higher value of BTC got confirmed earlier but this is still pending.

Lol, sometimes sarcasm does come across on the internet, huh? ;D

I'm not sure if "attack" or "cartel" are appropriate descriptions. The current transaction peak could easily be natural demand, I've not seen anyone present evidence that it's either malign or benign.

I do feel the pain on this though, I found myself working out what percentage of my transaction the fee represented earlier (and when it turned out to be slightly less than 0.1% of the transaction, I relaxed again)

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img924/6127/6aQXRC.gif

65 000 tx in queue ?!?

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img924/4719/S348ZR.png

https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img924/6963/Kms5PG.png

why ?

if you pay the right fees from a LEGAL & LEGIT client (bitcoin core, bitcoinj with fees survey) ... you have no problem to be include in the next block.

because this programs read the fees in every blocks and indicate this in realtime before EMIT the transaction.
if you follow the rules ... no problem.

many users use fixed fees.
and they cry now.  ::)

Yeah,. This is a problem they make proper payment and if they can't give you the exact payment then it will happen something that we don't want (the transaction is rising). So if you want to get a deal that is good then you must also obey a Law that applies in the bitcoin bitcoin law, because it is much easier than with other things. All this is not a problem but it's a human error

373 bytes TX size and you've included 0.0001 BTC which is equal to 10 000 Satoshis. You've included a fee of 26.8 satoshis/byte (please use this measurement in the future). The current recommended is 100 satoshis/byte.

It would make sense if it were a gradual increase over a longer amount of time. The spike seems exponential considering the time-frame.

Exactly. When you read and someone says "I used the recommended fee... It is and always was X" then you know you're dealing with someone who literally never changes the fee.

Look on https://bitcoinfees.21.co (https://bitcoinfees.21.co) for proper fees needs today. Nott yesterday, or last year or on your uncle's birthday. Today.

It is funny that my sends have been confirmed but my web wallets are not receiving them and just showing them as pending. So they are there but my wallet is not accepting them.
It is very strange indeed. :-\

Lol that's because your web wallet is terrible. Let me guess, blockchain.info? They always have problems. Maybe it's someone new this time though haha. Try a better wallet explorer (and a better wallet).

Last time i checked every block is full so its got nothing to do with a lack of miners or low fees.

WHAT IS GOING ON. THERE ARE SO MANY UNCONFIRMED TRANSACTIONS.

ARE WE GOING TO THE MOON? IS IT HAPPENING?

I've had no problems sending Bitcoins using blockchain.info, just gotta set the fees yourself and add enough.
Biggest problem for me has been withdrawing coins from services that set a dynamic fee.

I doubt that it have something to do with mass adoption.

Maybe miners aren't confirming small fees or someone is flooding the chain, I have no ideia however mass adoption isn't an option.

Btw, price is estable.

Unconfirmed likely because someone decided to put something in way too early and everyone is using a service that's now locking up.

That or we're experiencing a spam attack on the network; something not completely out of the realm of possibility, however unlikely.

The value isn't moving right now, doubtful we're going to the moon right now.

The miners are doing everything they can, but that's clearly not enough.
Check this one:

https://btc.com/000000000000000002e4403e2babdccfe89704277ea48e1ab3ed5957cdfb1f24

That block contains 2,469 transactions (is this the new record?), and it's nearly touching the 1MB block size limit at 998,085 Bytes.

I'm still waiting for larger block sizes, or SegWit which could assuredly help on the short term, but meanwhile there is no other solution than to go for larger fees, with the risk of making BTC less popular.

Miners, and all BTC developers should understand that BTC's growth requires a growing infrastructure and includes a growing block size. Visa wasn't able to handle thousands of transactions every second some decades ago, but Visa has good managers and they anticipated the growth of the network. BTC needs to do the same. If I'm reasonable, I'd say the block size should be increased 50% each year.

We are above 1 BTC of fees per block.  8)

max tx per block :
http://btc.blockr.io/block/info/440261
http://btc.blockr.io/block/info/440247
http://btc.blockr.io/block/info/440190

Only 3 blocks in 24h with less than 180kb of block.

Very good !
BIP152 work really now ...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1687242.0

Fascinating. Quote?

Do you realize that relying on the fees paid in the previous block as an indicator of fees needed for the next block is not deterministic?

And that is even if miners were not completely free to choose for themselves which transactions they will collate to mine upon.

a block with 1,2 BTC and 1300 tx ... and a block with 3300 tx and 0,8 BTC of fees : yes, it's correct for estimate the proper fees.

and it's work since 1 year in Bitcoin Core.

That's why I'm not making any transaction right now(last days)... You need a higher fee to make your transaction goes fast...

I'll just sit here and wait until the things goes back to normal. Don't you?

74,803 Unconfirmed Transactions

I paid almost 0.0003 BTC (0,2112 EURO) as fee for a small transaction and I didn't get any confirmation since almost 3 hours already, like this ain't funny anymore

If this issue persists, I think more people would hesitate to make transactions nad just wait a while until some solutions are set into place. Even if the transaction fees are increased and there is still substantial delay, many would be turned off by this slow progress.

Nope, saw one by HaoBTC for 3200 transactions yesterday,

Theoretical limit is 4200 transactions per block.

 8)

fee of bank (per month) ?
fee of mastercard/visa circuit ?
fee of the POS leasing (per month) ?
fee of the global transaction per year (at the bank) ?

0,2 euros is nothing when you MUST and WANT transmit something IN A OVERHEADED week.
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img924/2747/DpWHd8.gif

I pay a coffee and what ... the coffee shop need to pay is seller/provider after 2h ?
No.

This situation is nothing compare to the free network and no chargeback result.
When you emit, you will be pay after that on Bitcoin network.

Or ... vote SegWit instead.
http://bitcoin.sipa.be/versions.html

I am sorry, but I have to agree, Boycotting the service will not help anyone in any way, except for the government bodies who want it canned.  What would be a good reason to boycott bitcoin?  We all have money tied up into it and if it goes down, it is gone for good.

No. I don't. I'm pretty sure this is the new normal.

Looking at the 7-day average of market cap, we are about to hit that measure's high water mark. (Currently at ~$10.2B USD and climbing fast, was only larger than this for less than ten days in Nov-Dec 2013, with max of ~$10.9B USD on 2013 Dec 12 - https://blockchain.info/charts/market-cap?timespan=all&daysAverageString=7) With this significant event coming to pass, there will be renewed interest in the popular press. With renewed interest comes an influx of new users. With an influx of new users comes additional transactions. All competing for the same limited block space.

Many will turn away in derision when The New Magic Internet Money does not seem to deliver on its promises of fast & near free. But some will suck it up and deal. Net: more usage of the blockchain. More delays in getting your transactions processed. More fees per transaction. And more stuck transactions in an ever-increasing backlog.

While all this is unfortunate, what really sucks is the forestalling of The Wave Of Adoption That Could Have Been, were it not be for a stupid maxblocksize limit.

Not enough info. 0.0003BTC is a low fee if you had, say, 10 inputs. I sent a transaction with above proper fees (126 satoshi/kb) a few hours ago, and it was confirmed in the next block. Your fault for using a low fee. By small, do you mean small BTC amount, or transaction size? BTC amount doesn't matter to how quickly it gets confirmed.

If this is true, with the increasing number of course the confirm sapping our time and resources. We have to think to shorten this confirmation to prevent waste time.

Could it be that fees are too low for some of these and they are taking a long time. It could be that it just happens to be happening all at one time by coincidence or that miners are refusing to confirm them collectively.

Yeah, it could be. But probably is not. How close to maximum theoretical capacity do you think is realistic?

I call it a bitcoin fail, it just simply cannot scale to the current usage. Thanks.

Boycott did not happen except for maybe me and the only 200 or so people that saw the original topic link,
BTCTalk Censored every topic listing , I had posted.

At least we know big brother is alive and well.  :P


As far as a  real fix to BTC transactions issues.
Here are 2 different fixes, recommend by 2 different groups. (To be honest either or both would fix the transactions issue)

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/why-viabtc-rejects-segwit-soft-fork-in-favor-of-block-size-hard-fork-interview-with-haipo-yang-1479409475

http://www.coindesk.com/lower-bitcoin-block-time-scale/

LTC has 4X the transaction capacity as BTC , because they have a 2½ minute block speed.

BTC could lower their block speed to the same 2½ minutes and double their block size to 2 Megabyte instead of 1 megabyte.
This would increase BTC Transactions Capacity 8X what it is today.

You have some shrills pop up, that say it is too risky or hurts security or it is just made up propaganda.
Will doing the above make BTC a match for Visa, No it will never be a direct match for visa at current infrastructure level.

OffChain Transactions will be required to match Visa, whether the lightening network or something else.
But even the LN will fail, if BTC can't handle the transactions volume, which it is already at the breaking point.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/here-s-how-bitcoin-s-lightning-network-could-fail-1467736127

No matter if SegWit & LN is activated next week, none of it gives a 8X increase like the earlier recommendations, so it will likely crash within a year or two, unless the underlying structure is able to handle the load.

Example:
BTC is the Foundation of Building
SegWit , the 1st floor, and LN the Skyscraper on top of it,
If BTC crumbles because it can't handle the stress, SegWit & LN are going to come crashing down on top of it.  :P

 8)

I still feel that for the general public to regain interstest it doesn't need to pass the ath marketcap, but instead it needs to pass the ath per bitcoin again.

Everybody has the 1000+ coins in memory, and saying it passed the peak at 800+ is not really understandable to people that know nothing about bitcoin.

You should not look at only one block to make any definitive conclusion (as to whether the miners are actually doing everything they can). I can just as well say that some miners are doing the best what they can while the rest of them (which are in majority, by the way) are doing essentially nothing. In short, it is only around 144 new blocks found daily, so could anyone post exact data as to the actual sizes of the blocks mined for the last two days (or since when the jam has started)?

That would most likely close this question

*Current usage*? Not really. The combination used in the attack is actually quite smart:
1) Use a good amount of quantity and slowly increase over the course of 2 days.
2) Use unusually large transactions with a lot of input scripts. These transactions tend to be larger e.g. 1kb. The effect that this does is that miners tend to mine more blocks with less transactions (1k or lower). As a result the ever growing backlog becomes much worse than it is.

---

You can see some dormant addresses that suddenly created over 1 thousand (multisignature transactions) over the course of 2 days each.

fee of bank (per month)? None
fee of mastercard/visa circuit? None
fee of the POS leasing (per month)? Don't know what it is
fee of the global transaction per year (at the bank)? None

I get a 5% cashback for all supermarket purchases made with the debit card issued by the bank that I use, and 1% for all other purchases (up to a certain limit which I never come close to). All wire transfers are free of charge (with no limits), all card-to-card transfers are also free of charge (though the total amount is limited per month)...

Obviously, not all banks are born equal

The situation is worsening. Yesterday the number was around 32,000. Now it is close to 58,000. Just 1,816 transactions got confirmed in Block no.440322 (ViaBTC).

https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions

There is no point in requesting the users to hold back their transactions. Because most of the transactions are from margin traders and gamblers.

i Sent funds from Cryptopia & Bittrex to Poloniex. Got 2 Confirmations within 10 minutes of transaction...

But that depends on the fee you're going to send. For example if I'm going to send a transaction of 0.05BTC with 10k satoshis fee, it's going to get confirmed after a pretty long time (about one day). You have to be careful, if you need to pay something pretty fast then you will want to use the fee recommended by your wallet.

I am also heavily active in the altcoin world. I also hope that my few altcoins will become much more valuable.
But it's a big difference in math. I hope that Bitcoin will continue to grow and my altcoins to also grow vs Bitcoin.
So my math tells: if Bitcoin reaches $2000 and [insert altcoin name here] reaches 0.1BTC I am a happy hippo already.

There's no point trolling Bitcoin. Although slower than I'd wish, Bitcoin evolves and all the altcoins with "Bitcoin" in the name (under pretexts that they are the evolution Bitcoin needs) are only silly attempts to gain marketing, not thinking that they lose more than they gain with that.


I thought that my bank is good. Yours is even better! :D
(In my case though I have to get over a certain amount of money in that account each month, else I have to start paying for their services.)

Just Bitcoin is asset, not money. If you think like that the comparison with banks don't hold so well anymore (imho) and then you can also understand that the transactions are better safe than super fast.
(If you want super fast you either pay a fat fee, either turn to faster coins).


I wish to see a service/website that tells which sites / services have the bigger percents of transactions.
I somehow tend to believe that on-chain gambling is too expensive to worth it and the "normal" gambling sites should not have that many deposits and withdrawals in so small amounts of time.
But I also don't have a good explanation for this wave of transactions so my math may have a glitch somewhere...

I think more than 30.000 unconfirmed transaction, just for today about 40.000 unconfirmed transaction http://www.newsbtc.com/2016/11/23/spamming-continues-on-bitcoin-network-delays-transactions/ and it is more growing up, it is bad spamming on bitcoin network, i think the miners are still mining with sleeply.  ;D

you should also take a look at the size of the transactions in total aka mempool size.
https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-size

because the restrictive factor is not the "number of transactions" but the size of them because of the 1 MB limit of blocks.


don't pay much attention to that topic, it was a bad joke from someone who was advertising an altcoin.

In the website which you had posted above, the following information is given:


That means that transactions which paid at least BTC0.0002 in fee are getting confirmed without much delay (provided that their size is more or less equal to the median transaction size). The delay is mostly happening to those who paid a lower tx fee.

Wrong. 0.0002 BTC is equal to 20000 satoshis. For a transaction of the media size (226 bytes) that is still under the recommended, as it is 88.49 bytes/satoshis. That said, due to the incompetence of most users they are likely creating unnecessarily large transactions which require even bigger fees than that. A fixed fee does not guarantee anything. Including a fee of 0.0004 may be inadequate. It has to be measured in satoshis/byte.

Yes bitcoin must come with slogan:
ONLY FOR PROS.NOT FOR INCOMPETENT OR NEW USERS.

The same applies for any financial system. Try doing a bank transfer without including the necessary fee and see what happens. In other words, you can't.

https://img.ifcdn.com/images/e66c54c7013eec5cd1577083ae01f0099b218803df784d0e08deaf972205ccaf_1.jpg

 :D :D :D

Seriously ,
If they fix BTC transactions problems then Great , if not, then not really my problem, I am mainly into Alts anyway.
As far as SegWit, no anti here, LN won't work without.
My main point is the transaction congestion can easily be fixed by increasing block size or decreasing blockspeed, and the people that say that won't work are Lying.
Now once that has been done, yes SegWit & LN will be needed if you want to compete with Visa, but if BTC transactions issues are not fixed, LN will crash.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/here-s-how-bitcoin-s-lightning-network-could-fail-1467736127

What you call trolling , I call an Honest Opinion.   :)

How many trolls actually tell you the solution to the problem so it can be fixed?  ;)
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/why-viabtc-rejects-segwit-soft-fork-in-favor-of-block-size-hard-fork-interview-with-haipo-yang-1479409475
Either or Both
http://www.coindesk.com/lower-bitcoin-block-time-scale/

 8)

Nope... all you need to know is simple addition/subtraction and basic knowledge of computers/browsers. If you are using the Blockchain.info wallet, it will automatically set the transaction fee according to your transaction size. You don't have to worry about anything.

BTC Transactions Congestion Problems   :-[

Simulation Example
each block has 1 MB of transactions with a theoretical Limit of 4200 transactions per block with a 10 minute BlockSpeed , [] is a block
One Hour of Blocks
[1] 10 minutes [1] 10 minutes [1] 10 minutes [1] 10 minutes [1] 10 minutes [1] 10 minutes
6 Blocks * 4200 Transactions =  25200 Maximum Theoretical Transactions per Hour

BTC Transactions Congestion Solutions   ;D

Simulation Example Updated with Larger BlockSize and Shorter BlockSpeed
each block has 2 MB of transactions with a theoretical Limit of 8400 transactions per block with a 2½ minute BlockSpeed , [] is a block
One Hour of Blocks
[2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes
[2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes
[2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes
[2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes
[2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes
[2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes

24 Blocks * 8400 Transactions = 201600 Maximum Theoretical Transactions per Hour

Compare Updated Simulation with Original
201600 / 25200  = 8
Updated Version can handle 8X the Transaction Capacity.  ;)

Now the educated asshats that live in these forums will tell you it can't work or it is a security risk, (They are Lying!)
Real World Examples.
PoW coin LTC has a 2½ minute block time with no problems whatsoever from it.
In Fact Chinese Mining Pools are over 51% of the BTC Hash rate , and are also over 51% of the LTC Hashrate.
In Facts some alts run at a 30 second blockspeed.
Oh, they also will complain, it will affect the Block Reward and Halving Dates,
(All of that are Variables that can be modified to compensate for the changes)

If they lower the Blockspeed,
then they will have to increase the Final Supply Number of Bitcoins or allow it to get to the Final Supply Number 4X faster than it would have.

If they only increase the BlockSize ,
then the Block rewards and halving dates are not affected, and will not need modification.
But Transactions grow will be directly proportional to the increase in BlockSize.
IE: 2 MB Block only Double the Transaction Capacity
     8 MB Blocks would increase by 8X also   

 8)

The miners better start to fix this problem. They are the ones with expensive equipment that will be worthless if the bitcoin price drops due to this issue

...ithink its tiime btc went to a 10mb block size, HD space is what 20 x or more than 2009 for the same price

satoshi had it at 33mb

it probally time satoshi made some sort of proclamation to sort this mess out.

There is no fix and the miners can not do anything. They are not in control of the network.

Wrong. Please educate yourself before spreading such nonsense. First of all, that "20x or more" is an arbitrary number unless a source is provided. Secondly, there are plenty of factors that need to be included (not just storage space).
1) Computational power (validation time).
2) Bandwidth.
3) Storage.
4) Orphan rates, et. al.

In addition to that, with sighash operations currently having having exponential time, there is a DOS attack vector present even at 2 MB blocks.

@jubalix

https://hblok.net/storage_data/storage_memory_prices_large-_hblok.net_.png

2008.00 Jan18  NewEgg.com  ADATA  16GB Flash  74.98$
2016.58 Aug22  NewEgg.com  SanDisk  128GB Flash  25.99$

Those are going to be inappropriate to use with Bitcoin, cheap NAND like that only does 10MB/s writing sequentially, let alone the more random access workload that maintaining the blockchain entails.

And for the millionth time: storage is the least challenging factor (yet the most simple to understand, and you're relying on that, aren't you? Maybe if you respected the intelligence of your audience, you might get listened to)

This is the second time we are with this problem, last time i believe we had achieved something like 80000 transactions pending, bitcoin has value as long keep circulating, if it freeze the way its doing this affects several people, even when people arent putting the  fee accordingly the bytes of the transaction. This have to stop and change, the core must do something to handle this, i remember bitcoin x had made the comunity shared and those had damage bitcoin value, now we need some solution.

what wrong with bitcoin net?is the fee to little?

@Rinder
Nobody depends from Core, and the solution is already out :)

Lets hope that this won`t affect bitcoin price.

What`s going with the miners really.

Will this problem going to be solved soon?

It's not blockchain.info as the web wallet.

The support person that I contacted said they saw the problem but needs to have their tier 1 level support look into it and resolve the issue.
It has been pending (the first three) for 56 hours now and the last and fourth one for 24 hours now. I have not sent anything to this wallet until this has been unblocked from being sent to my available balance and not just stuck in pending as shown in my transactions log.

Ok I thought that bitcoin was supposed to be different from the banks.Something like pro-users. So how about:
BITCOIN: JUST LIKE BANKS , BUT MORE COMPLICATED.

increase the blocksize. duhhhhhhhhh.  idiots.

It won't affect the price as long as all transactions are not getting stuck, if eventually every second transaction start getting stuck in the network for any reason then it may disappoint some new adopters and which may affect the price a bit, but that is likely to happen.

We are, in the soft-fork.

And thank you for your kind words, do you have any more tips on making friends and influencing people, lol

I have yet to see it proved that it does actually have anything to do with the block size and not miners deliberately postponing confirmations, for whatever reason. Whoever is going to challenge that point, you know what to do. Basically, you should provide a list of the blocks mined since about time this congestion started with their respective sizes. The list is not going to be long, there are only 144 new blocks mined daily on average, and we will easily see who is right and who is not...

Anyone willing to compile such a list?

Unbelievable, why need 30.000 confirmations? I think this is not practice and make peoples leave bitcoin for transactions.

Well, situation is getting better. When this thread was created yesterday we had almost 30.000 unconfirmed transactions pending.
When I checked out situation earlier today that number was more than 70.000 - now it is back to 30k level again.
It is downward trend or from now we will be stuck with plus 30k pending confirmation at all times?

I call it : ANTISPAM.
When you don't follow the (old) rules ... you hit the wall.

Networks not deal with this.
They apply rules.

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img923/1515/vNQPtm.jpg

This is very unusual. I see that the number of transaction is still normal, but the number of unconfirmed transactions increases strangely. What might happen to the blockchain system ? Why do miners ignore their work ? Or is that because some problems appear on the network ?

they don't ignore ... somes peoples pay more fees than other, it's all.




so, the others MUST WAIT. http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img921/9287/DIQmJz.jpg




it's nothing more than an antispam feature (rules MUST apply). http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img633/9270/crMjhc.gif

Now I see my 2 days old transaction has been confirmed and earlier today when there were about 48k unconfirmed transactions, 10k transactions have been confirmed. The transactions with the recommended fee only are getting confirmed early compared to other transactions with a small fee.

this spam attack is good in a way that it will make some of the otherwise oblivious members educate themselves on how bitcoin tx fees work
guesstimating on a level of: "hey it is 500k so i pay 10k and if it is 0.05 I would splash 20k out" doesn't work and it is being punished by the prolonged wait
it does seem that an adequate (or slightly above) fee sees your tx confirmed no problem,just had a couple confirmed within 1 hour window
yes,it does take more money than usual to get high priority,but so is the current situation-deal with it
as much as it is frustrating to wait,please educate yourselves:

Predicting Bitcoin fees for transactions:

https://bitcoinfees.21.co/

http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/1195/how-to-calculate-transaction-size-before-sending

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=644189.0

I'm afraid this might not have been a spam attack (whatever you might mean by this). Yesterday, there were quite a few blocks that had a lot free space in them (note, I didn't consider empty blocks), and this is in striking contrast with what miners are doing today and what they had been doing just before yesterday. Whoever might want to strongly disagree, may also want to check the blockchain for themselves (https://blockchain.info/blocks/1480008107519)...

So, it looks more like some miner attempting at getting more fees than someone spamming the network

Perception of "priority" is a real problem, thanks mostly to Blockchain.info.

Priority used to be based on how long ago a particular chunk of BTC was last spent: the older the chunk, the higher priority it has when it gets spent. This was to discourage spam, but also to encourage hoarders to spend.

But that logic has mostly been removed from Bitcoin, and it will be completely gone by the release of 0.14 (next major version being worked on now). But Blockchain.info haven't updated their "transaction" web page format to account for this, they're still using the previous age-based logic, and displaying it as if it's correct. Not very responsible for a big name in the industry, IMO.

Well someone from the mining world has to clear this up so I'll explain.

What you are seeing from miners is a combination of clunky optimisations and bad configuration; it is not completely out of malice. Believe it or not, miners often do things without knowing they're doing them and are uninformed.  There are two major patterns to the blocks that are not full sized.

One is the "empty blocks" where there is only the generation transaction done as SPV (light wallet) mining without full validation of the block - these are done by many Chinese pools as a speed optimisation where they mine off the header of the previously found block temporarily from another pool until they can finish the validation completely and eventually switch to a fully validated block. They claim it is a way to save themselves from the delay inherent in the great firewall of China, though it is purely an optimisation to work around their less-scalable choice of pool software and setups. Most pools outside China do not use this. Some pooled mining software has been hacked to mine empty blocks even without use of header-only mining to speed up getting out block changes to its miners as well - there are other options though that are fast on block changes without this cludge but you can't force people to choose what software they run and how they run it.

See this for more discussion of empty blocks:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1085800.0

Second is purely a badly configured bitcoind either because they left it at the default or they configured it smaller by choice thinking it will provide them with a speed up to minimise their risk of orphans. The default in bitcoind is actually set to 750k and you can see many smaller "pools" or entities mining blocks of that size. Yes it's true, there are entities with millions of dollars worth of mining gear that don't know how to configure bitcoind. Additionally some pooled miners chose to actually set it lower simply to speed up work generation - notably p2pool users.

Yes the blocks would ALL be full if the miners configured their set ups correctly. The reality is these choices do speed up block generation and block propagation slightly and do decrease the risk of orphans, but with each next version of bitcoind these get smaller and smaller, and I maintain pooled mining software that is designed to be quick for fully validated and full sized block but of course I can't force everyone to use my software (even though it's free.)

Remember that fees are the long term incentive for miners to mine transactions into their block, but since the bulk of the fees on each block can be obtained by miners without actually filling the blocks, there is actually no major incentive for them to ensure each block is full unless they care about bitcoin transactions at large. Many miners DO care and choose their pools accordingly, but there are massive farms/entities that do not care or aren't even informed. They think they just need to get as much profit as quickly as possible from mining since the margins are now slim, and they are not aware of how their choices are affecting the network and bitcoin health. That doesn't mean their choices are actually leading to better profits by the way.

Don't worry, I read the rest of your post and just saving screen space

In this way, miners are deliberately (and some part of them maybe through ignorance) pursuing profits in the form of the mining reward only, not caring much about fees collected and transactions included, thus the empty blocks. So far so good. But this doesn't explain why some blocks are only half full (and I don't mean those 750k blocks). For example, this (https://blockchain.info/block/000000000000000001a65db1f68313b6cee87dc4770ff9bef3b553bce499f302) block has only 82 transactions. A few other blocks have a few hundred transactions in them, but they are still less than half full (this (https://blockchain.info/block/00000000000000000096f8e856fb64dbf6c0b05767241415b48f3dc94c014b96) and this (https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000000037bcbb8e725eb4ecd73c04f2a959510a8a45d00c6488145) blocks). And such blocks were seen only yesterday, there were no such blocks today or before yesterday. What's the catch really?

Looking good ... purge in progress.

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img922/7500/qGgGbw.png

where did you get this plot ?

 ;) read the logo in watermark.

Pretty sure I explained - dodgy optimisation choices in a hacked coin daemon. It was notably less than 2 minutes after the previous block. The mempool would have clearly been full in a regular bitcoind at the time so there's no way a call to create a block template would have only given them a 33kB block.

EDIT: Look at the block sizes here for the last 30 days and sort by average size:
http://data.bitcoinity.org/bitcoin/blocksize/30d?t=l

You'll see that famously the smallest average block size is by Eligius which is the pool associated with Luke-jr... So that one's clearly not a conspiracy by the people pushing for bigger blocks. 3 of the top 4 average sizes are from ckpool users.

didn't know that,thank you for clarification
besides blockchain.info estimation of optimal fees is usually scewed and not in the senders favour,it tends to suggest ridiculously high fees

Yes, that's the impression I get from other BC.i wallet users too. If they can tell you (accurately) what the size of your transaction will be before you set the fee, you can use https://bitcoinfees.21.co (and a little old-fashioned arithmetic) to work out what a sensible fee should be.

3200 transactions, that's impressive, and it's also a matter of chance, as there were very few large transactions in that block.
Things look like it's getting better with only 27K transactions waiting as of now, but there might plenty of large ones in that number...

Made a SEPA transfer from Switzerland to the UK last Friday morning. The money arrived on Tuesday morning. That's awfully slow but that transfer was free.

Segwit is an increase in the Blocksize. There is no "larger blocks, or Segwit"


What makes you think that blocksize changes are the only way to increase the transaction rate? If you were reasonable, you'd say that blocksize increases should be a last resort, and that anything else that improves the transaction rate should be implemented before that.

I have an unconfirmed transaction, already 2 days.
How long it will last?

please stand by, Carlton Banks will soon prove to you that your TX dont matter, and your attempt to use bitcoin was just silly.

How can we increase adoption, make Bitcoin mainstream, and make it a one world currency so that no one in the world can actually spend any money. LOL

To the moon. ROFL

I agree with you totally because I am curious with what the Lightning Network can bring and how it will be used and what more uses can be invented thru it. I am also skeptical to the developers behind the hard fork. They might have another agenda in mind other than wanting to have "big blocks".  

On LN, I believe there will be no official LN implementation and one LN could be better than the other. But what really intrigues me is how it can be used as a bridge to receive and send transactions to other blockchains. That would at least complement the exchanges.

first make all users download the blockchain ( this is very important )
then you make them send their btc to a LN node
then they can timelock these bitcoins and open channels
then they can buy 30,000 separate cam shows and only pay 12$ in TX fee
they have to do this before their time lock expires and closes the channel ofc...

http://blog.scottlogic.com/jhill/assets/time_lock_transaction_diagram.png
thats how its done.

I also experiencing the same problem now,, I have three unconfirmed transaction. Am I need to bother, since I can not now contact the one who send the bitcoin to me. It makes me feel so sad now. This is my first time to experience this kind of problem. And one more thing that bother me most is that, I will have big amount this coming weekends so I am afraid that I cannot get my payment. How long this thing or problem last? I hope the miners will noticed this one.
I thought the problems was in my online wallet, I was wrong it is all over the globe problem.
Until now my transaction is not yet confirmed, I hope I can get the money that is mine.

Just a joke! I had too much free time  :P

https://i.imgur.com/dCf2Tba.png

At least the transactions are going more fast right now and the queue is smaller

Can you imagine if we have more users of bitcoin? Will be a mess.

Either way I'm glad to see that they finally got the transactions pushed though, likely something to do with someone sending too many transactions or there was someone trying to move a lot.

With more users I definitely seeing a lot of unconfirmed transactions becoming a considerable issue. There has to be a fix  implemented at some point, however what is being proposed isn't necessarily the best.

Yea but if we don't have much users of bitcoins, it is mean bitcoin will be die slowly, more better many users of bitcoins slow transaction than there are no people who use bitcoins. Because people of transaction can be fixed by the developers of bitcoins, but there are no users of bitcoins, it is mean die.  ;D

Yes I am not and expert and thus learning for mistakes. Can you please give some links of the stuff regarding boycott btc matter? I would like to learn more about it and so that I won’t support any such movements blindly. It is something that is happening for the first time since I joined bitcoin community so expert views would help members like me to learn more.

The boycott would have been no one sending BTC on the Blockchain for 24 hours Only.  (Amazing how much that scared everyone)
1.  The Transaction Queue would have had time to clear, so people that were waiting for 3 days or so , would have received their BTC
2.  To send a message to the Devs & Mining Pools to fix the transaction capacity problem

It did not happen since only a handfull of people even knew about it , as BTCtalk Mods deleted all of the Main Topics that were to get the word out.
Censorship at work.   :P

 8)

transaction pool is receeding. Currently at 16k+ unconfirmed transactions. This is the second time its happening

The problem with that theory is that people don't like to be first and they want to see things work perfectly before they try them.

No one other than cultist bitcoiners will ever download the entire Blockchain. Hell, even I won't ever do it again. I lost my copy of the entire chain a little over a year ago, waited two days for it to never catch up and quit. I'm an SPV kind of guy forever after that. Pruning mode in the new clients is a joke and if you want to revert to a full node you need to redownload the whole thing again.

What are you going to do about laptop people? Over half of the people I know only own a laptop, believing it stupid to have both a desktop and a laptop when the laptop does everything they want to do. Most, if not all, of these "laptopers" have less than a 500gb SSD drive. Which would you prefer to do? Make them rearrange their lives to accommodate bitcoin by purchasing a dedicated bitcoin desktop or make Bitcoin the only thing on their laptop and run only a client with the prune=<500> switch set?  Both options are not only ridiculous but will not happen because no one will do it when they can just use ApplePay or a debit card instead.

Really big blocks - when is that happening again?

Not that I argue with your logic, downloading the blockchain is a painful process for many people and they will use SPV clients. However, Bitcoin is primarily used precisely because people can't use ApplePay or a credit/debit card. Not always because they need to buy something illegal with Bitcoins. Many use cases are areas like gambling that can't be funded with a credit card but these areas are only illegal in the eye of police states. These people are willing to take some pain to learn Bitcoin and download the blockchain. But yeah, given that Bitcoin is a pilot project of cryptocurrency and competition tirelessly working on more manageable and flexible alternative designs, the current status quo of Bitcoin is not going to be forever.

Pool is already in descending trend and almost near to what they were few days ago http://bitcointicker.co/networkstats/
Graphs showing few spikes on yesterday and day before yesterday, what could be the reason behind those sudden spike?

things going back to normal again, maybe because people started to use higher fees..

If we exclude a conspiracy theory involving Chinese miners (or just some exceptionally greedy miners, for that matter) deliberately ignoring a lot of transactions, say, with the aim of extorting higher fees and stick to another conspiracy theory instead, it could be claimed that someone had been flooding or spamming the Bitcoin network with transactions having high enough fees to crowd out the genuine transactions with typical or recommended fees. That is, trying to bring the network down...

Why would they want to do that is another question, though

It is an interesting theory, although I am not too sure about it. Spamming the network requires a lot of funds and resources. Who is having that sort of funds with them? Bankers? But I have to say that their attempts have failed miserably. The Bitcoin exchange rates are stable as of now, and the number of unconfirmed transactions are declining.

That's called spamming in order to push an agenda.

I don't really think that it would require a lot of resources and funds, say, for an average banker. People who strongly oppose related conspiracy theories say that the blocks are already filled up to the hilt. Okay, let's assume that their claims have at least some substance in them. Given that around 250k transactions are processed daily on average and that this number is pretty close to the current processing capacity of the Bitcoin network (due to the block size limit), it effectively means that to overwhelm the network and crowd out the bulk of transactions the miscreant would have to add only around 50k transactions with, say, 50k satoshi of fees on a daily basis...

And that would cost him 50000*0.0005=25 bitcoins, or around 18,000 dollars, or exactly two mining rewards

Hmmmm, you're not really into Bitcoin, are you?

I myself indulge in all these "ridiculous" options, what I do is I check what kind of performance the hardware will need, then take some money, then spend it on the appropriate computer hardware. You seem to be claiming that today's Windows & Word low spec laptops can't handle it. Neither could yesterday's.

So what are you highlighting, other than nothing?

He loves to play devil's advocate to the point where I no longer know if he is playing anymore!

LOL, I thought he was just being an asshat.  :D

 8)

FYI:
He could have just said the laptop people could get a 2TB USB to store the blockchain.
But I won't download the BTC blockchain and I am using a Desktop with multiple TB in it.
No point, since BTC is PoW instead of PoS, there is 0 advantage for me.

For those that really didn't understand what I'm getting at:

Fix the fucking thing so it's capable of being used by more than a few hardcore bitcoiners worldwide and stop making excuses for its problems. Recognizing a problem is the first step toward a solution.

No one ever sits back and looks at what these average people would need to do to use Bitcoin or if they would be willing to do it at all. Currently, most wouldn't because they're too lazy.

http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/crowd-of-102910-came-out-for-the-penn-state-football-homecoming-game-picture-id456213682
One single stadium holding 1/3 the number of daily Bitcoin transactions worldwide. After nearly seven years that's a problem.

BTW: Why is Bitcoin still in beta after seven years? Most companies would go broke if they waited this long.

lol @ "fix the fucking thing"

What's stopping you from coming up with a fix?



The real issue here is that fixes to the scalability of Bitcoin have been in the works for years now, and we're finally getting to the point where something concrete is about to happen (with lots of groundwork already done).


In other words, the issue is your ignorance, and your attribution of blame to anyone except yourself. If you don't know what the outline is for improving the Bitcoin network, and you do nothing but complain, it's no-one's fault but yours. Get reading.

fees.

always fees.

think "fees" fees FEES FEES !

why do you want take transactions when it's funny ?
are you spend FIAT MONEY with your plastic card because is FUNNY ? http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img633/6498/RAReuD.jpg
no.

When Bitcoin hit the mainstream (the real one ... with lost of bitcoins from a broken phone), the fees discourage the FUNNY usage and CUT the SPAM transactions.

That's why Lightning Network is important after the SegWit.
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img921/1817/YaqtIc.jpg

That's why increase of block size is useless ... but organize the inside of block, no.
segwit don't increase the size, it's increase the order inside the block.http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img903/7506/Lx7d4E.gif

Ahahahh, you have a joke that might only make them have a passion for looking a porn star for use in impingement their passions. This is something quite natural for all people in the world, many people are more concerned with his own without looking at what will happen if they do something, so it all depends on those who understand about the bitcoin and if everyone is already familiar with the workings of the bitcoin then I think will not happen the problem like this

Its not hurting the price of bitcoin! So in a matter of speaking it is not a problem (yet).

in Europa, every year ... we have days with NO CREDIT CARD POS working.
strangely, every time when we have rush on Christmas Sold.

strange ?
bitcoin solve this : when you emit, you have no chargeback ... and only mempool can delay this.

with credit card, you CAN NOT PAY the seller when network is OUT (on server side).

I'm not the cheer leader or the preacher trying to get mass adoption. You fix the thing. I'm not a dev, I'm a user. Most people don't blame the customer for problems with their company (and that's what Bitcoin is competing with - companies). Be careful with that attitude because companies fail and customers move on.

Nothing is happening and just it's been in the works for years doesn't mean it's close.

I didn't blame anyone, that's your preserve


And "nothing happening" and "in the works" cannot both be simultaneously true. Troll harder.

Even with more nodes online we can sometimes see unconfirmed transactions, I don't know what exactly could cause this, aren't the low fees transactions still belong to the network?
I spent from blockchain.io with their selected fee but it took almost 5 hours while it says your transaction will confirm in 30 minutes.

I think I've now met the only person here that's a bigger troll than Frankly.

Yes, Segwit will effectively allow larger blocks, but that's not its main purpose, and the increase is marginal.

I want to be reasonable. If we could find a way to - I don't know how - reduce the size of transactions to fit more inside a block, I'd be happy, but if we want BTC's use to increase 10-fold, then 100-fold, we will have to increase the block size, and I don't see it as a big deal. The blockchain will be more than 100 Go in a few weeks, and nobody cares. Why should I care about the block size?

because you don't have a full node ... ?
Power, storage ... and Bandwidth.

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img923/27/pTu9bN.gif

You argued for a 50% increase yearly. Segwit represents a 400% increase.


Those two statements are more or less contradicting one another, what if we could reduce the size of transactions by a factor of 10 or 100? Changing the signature scheme from ECDSA to the proposed Schnorr scheme wouldn't quite achieve that, but it's still an improvement. There could easily be other ways to reduce the size of each transaction also.

The simple fact is that on-chain scaling isn't possible for 7 billion humans, I forget the exact estimate, but we're looking at each block growing to 100 GB+ to accommodate that kind of growth. Even 1 GB blocksize is totally impractical, 1GB every 10 minutes isn't feasible for anything but the fastest fibre broadband. 100GB every ten minutes isn't possible for any domestic connection today.

A blocksize of 100,000 times the current would enable 100,000 time more transactions than we are currently processing. Why the hell are you talking about this value in the context of what domestic connections today? Hyperventilate much?

Right now we have 250k transactions processed daily, increasing that by 100k times will give us a figure around 25 billion transactions daily. If we divide this figure by the total number of humans currently living (about 7.5 billion), we will get only 3 transactions per person daily. Some people may make dozens of transactions on a daily basis, some only maybe a few a week, but on average we should get quite close to that number (perhaps, it should be somewhat greater than that). And note that I'm not counting business transactions altogether. Now show me a really existing networking technology, domestic or whatever, that would be able to transmit data at or over 100 gigabytes (bytes, not bits) per second farther than a few miles...

And we would need such speeds across continents, dedicated entirely for the support of Bitcoin infrastructure

I'm not sure why you guys are now speculating of a future in which a 100k increase of the block size limit is possible. You are not factoring in computational limits into this. Even if storage and bandwidth were very cheap (affordable for such blocks) and everyone had connections that could support them, there are still computational limits. Validating such a chain, or syncing up to the network would be a nightmare (you would likely never be able to catch up).

The problem with increasing the block size is not only the transfer speed.

The most recent transaction type data shows that we would have a probable block size of 2.1 MB (up from previous 1.7 MB calculation). So 2.1x is what we call marginal today?

Hopefully after few days (today) the number of unconfirmed transaction has been dropped to 6k and this is normal (even though before it was somewhere at 2k)

250k daily is really a huge amount even though bitcoin is used worldwide but I see now that the trending of making new transaction is huge and within a few seconds there are lots of transaction made (based on blockchain.info)

No. 250k is very small (albeit *big* for something new like Bitcoin). In comparison, Visa does 2000 TPS on average which is over 150 Million transactions per day.

A lot of factors suggest that it was a spam attack (actually a preparatory one; the second wave will come soon).

I agree with you in general that there might be a lot of other factors making such scale-ups simply impossible. Though the required capacities and speeds might still be technically achievable in the future, exploiting them would nevertheless be a terrible waste of resources, anyway. Regarding your point specifically, that is, computational limits, I think that these can be overcome eventually by using highly specialized "transaction validation" hardware...

Just like ASICs (or whatever) are used for mining coins today


It is easiest to prove

You're right and two months from now the transactions will double or triple,this is something that all of us will worry and this is the best time to deal this problem,Bitcoin is indeed growing daily and people are now adopting it.

So you think that someone is going to attempt to invent specialized processing units for the sole purpose of running nodes? You do realize that running a node only makes you constantly lose money, so there is zero incentive to attempt a large investment for such.

The Bitcoin entire blockchain is nearly 100GB today. That's totally unfeasible for anything less than a 10 Mbit/s + connection.

So don't give me this today nonsense, you and your cadre are the only people who think that today's technology is the same as tomorrow's technology, just because you can imagine it. Stepping up to 2020's levels of resource usage is suicidal in 2016.

First of all, I don't think that we are ever going to get there, i.e. to 100Gb blocks, lol. As I said it a few times already (though not in this thread, thus you might have missed that), without changing the blockchain paradigm (e.g. from a flat blockchain to a multilayered blockchain), Bitcoin is pretty much doomed, and what is most scaring, we might be already in or quickly approaching this final stage. Having said that, I'm inclined to think that the very existence of specialized hardware designed specifically for mining Bitcoin proves my point. So, yes, someone would have attempted to design such processing units, to get a competitive edge over the rest of the pack, provided it could ever come to that in the first place...

And such units would have been designed long before confirmation of blocks became impossible without them

seems everyone is trying to shout doomsdays of "we need to be like visa today"
seems everyone is trying to shout doomsdays of "7billion people using bitcoin today"

seems everyone is trying to shout doomsdays of "bitcoin cannot cope with it today"

so lets be rational.
the 4mb BLOAT size increase has no correlation to transaction capacity increase.
the 2.1mb capacity size increase is based on a scenario where LN (dual permissioned multisigs) channel opening and closing reign supreme
the 1.8mb capacity size increase is based on a scenario where peer to peer(permission-less) reign supreme. (bitcoins ethos)

so sticking with bitcoins peer-to-peer permission-less ethos. rationally, segwit is only offering a ONE TIME 1.8x capacity 'side effect boost'.
it a one time event. so 'scaling' is not a buzzword that sits beside one time event.

LN should not be the compulsory solution to capacity 'scaling', to attain a higher (2.1mb+(2.1x)) capacity. LN just remain a side SERVICE that is an open choice.

now thats the short term mindset everyone should have.

---

as for the future.

at 1.8mb (1.8x capacity) side effect of segwit.. the other 2.2mb BLOAT size buffer (bringing total weight to 4mb) should not be wasted on arbitrary data and features that do not enhance capacity. (such as confidential payments)
we need to stick to lean clean transactions.

afterall bitcoin is a financial system, not a store of arbitrary data.

so concentrating on future TRANSACTION CAPACITY (not bloat). bitcoin CAN dynamically grow, naturally over years.

which is where a 2mb base 4mb weight. still falls within cores happy numbers of bloat, but allows less arbitrary data to keep the blockchain lean and clean and concentrating on transaction capacity

as time passes that can be increased. there is no need to jump to 100gb blocks today
as time passes that can be increased. there is no need to hold it back at low limits today

---

bitcoin does not have 7.5billion users now. bitcoin will never have 7.5billion users.
the fee war alone is pricing out over 1 billion people as it is, so cool down on the whole 'one world currency utopia'. and think rationally
 

It's over, thanks.http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img923/7055/Yw7hmu.gif

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img922/8706/uaDc54.png

That has changed now due to the usage type. Check the latest tweets from Bitfury. Now it is expected to be 2.1x considering the usage type from the most recent months.

One would expect that to happen during a date such a Black Friday, but nope. Definitely genuine transactions. ::)

but you have not asked yourself why.. or asked bitfury why.. here is the answer

if you think LN should reign supreme, i have to remind you of something (i did warn you)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1450783.msg16998029#msg16998029

No, you do not understand. The latest stats from Bitfury are based on current (i.e. actual) transaction usage. They are not speculating or anything. They have calculated the percentage of transaction types and then used those numbers with Segwit.

yes people are actually currently moving funds to multisigs.. but you are not asking WHY.
even though i dont 'need' multisigs, i have moved funds over to a multisig... do you want to know WHY.

to play out some LN scenarios

im glad to see you are starting to research though, so i will atleast give you a pleasant
have a nice day

:D

lol Meuh, you're like the funnier version of LiteCoinGuy. Well, LiteCoinGuy is a less funny version of you! ;D

Let's be honest here: You can not know why someone is doing that, especially not to generalize the increased multi-signature usage over the last few months. Extrapolating from anecdotal evidence is wrong.

pretending there is no answer, is different then not asking the question. please try to atleast learn why things happen instead of relying on unknown reasons.

because having no clue of the reasons makes any statistic you give less worthy, as it has no context.
yes there may be multiple reasons. but not even investigating a single reason or multiple reason makes the stats worthless as anything important

Shame on miners, if this type of situation happens then bitcoiners would give away using it. I can't understand is it the  end of bitcoin era or it's going to teach us a new lesson. Please miners common let's not go our hard earned money in vain.

No, actually the opposite is true. The statistic is very much valuable as it represents the actual current network usage of today. Making hasty generalizations due to potential use-cases is bad and will likely lead to completely wrong conclusions.

much like this topic
your presuming the increase in mempool was due to...........
black friday? spam?

have you ASKED why, RESEARCHED why, or just presumed.
oh one more hint. you can actually get the blockchain data, get all the multisigs and analyse it and see the inputs and outputs and see correlations, patterns of usage.

Switching back the topic? No, not black friday. The mempool was actually much smaller on Black Friday, so it's more likely to be spam (the spike).

Researched. It is almost most certainly someone spamming up the chain. Unless you want to tell me that we have *genuine* users with multisig addresses that are dormant for months and suddenly create over 1k transactions each during those two days? ::)

Let's assume that someone, or some entity, starts openly sending a huge number of transactions (on the order of many thousands) with hefty fees between just two addresses. Will miners continue to confirm these transactions when it becomes absolutely clear that exactly these transactions are causing the congestion? Or would they choose to ignore them altogether even despite the fees which might be higher than fees of most other transactions?

In other words, could there be a blacklist of Bitcoin addresses?

That sets a very dangerous precedence and I would be against that. However, miners are able to do that should they choose to.

much easier rule is not use fees to delay transactions
or blocking addresses

 but transaction maturity.
EG like blockreward maturity of 100 confirms

transactions cant be respent for atleast an hour and dropped out of mempool if someone tries to repeat spend in every block.
atleast it stays more inline with 'priority' than using a fee war to sort out things

I was also got trapped in this. I was so much tensed because the website shows that the invoice is expired but my bitcoin  transaction was confirmed only twice i was highly tensed but fortunately i had recovered somehow.

Miners will consume the fees gladly if two people are paying over the odds to play Ping Pong with their bitcoins....
Under the current economic law the persons who pay the most go first and I guess they will run out of money (btc)  before the miners will say no thx...

Might be because we reached the maximum btc users now it's time to move on?

If these Bitcoin Ping Pong players also happen to be miners (or just one miner with two wallets), they might never run out of money at all. I guess that should count as a working (allegedly) concept of perpetuum mobile as it can be applied to Bitcoin payments. So it all inevitably and invariably comes down to some rogue miner (or a group of miners) wanting to artificially raise fees, earn money, and make it look like Black Friday at the end of the day...

What do you guys/gals think, is it feasible (possible)?

Its very possible that miners could be involved in this game...

Nobody will complain while he is making a few thousand dollars per hour from inflated fees....

Again. Unless you expect this level of adoption today, we do not need such raw technological capability today. Why is this so hard to grasp?

Bullshit. You must be young and yet to acquire wisdom. I've seen processing power and storage do 100,000X in my lifetime. If we are to grow to Visa scale, we need only do it slightly ahead of adoption. The right way to do this is not to choke off adoption with artificial limits, but rather to increase any such limits so they stay above the rate of adoption.

there's millions of unconfirmed transactions. when your node drops unconfirmed transactions from the mempool, they don't cease to exist. they can be re-broadcast. and otherwise they can still simply float around the network.

nothing to see here. competition for block space and higher fees as we head into a low-subsidy future = a good thing.

jbreher, why then are you promoting an alternate Bitcoin project that today's technology can't deal with? Why are you pushing in a direction that literally could never deal with mainstream adoption before it arrives? You can't have it both ways.

Less than 28 hours to move that entire database over that limited link. Cry me a river.

Good one. Nothing like a good spam attack to get the FUDsters and big blockers going again. Bitcoin, once again, performs beautifully. And still, we're paying pathetically low fees. Why the hell are miners going to secure the network in the future with such piss-poor fee revenue? Perhaps we should be discussing lowering the block size...

Carlton Banks, I am not. I am pushing BU. Which has an adaptive maxblocksize as an emergent property of the system.

We do not yet know the rate of adoption in the future. For such is unknowable. But with maxblocksize set by the needs of the system itself, it allows us to deal with adoption as it occurs. It frees the system from waiting on core devs to push out a measly 1.8x capacity  - which experience hath shewn requires a calendar year of effort on their part -- even after starting years late.

Uh, yeah. You're agreeing with me: that double-digit Mbit/s is a rough minimum, below which most people will be put off from trying. And that minimum increases 1MB every ten minutes.

Tell us again about how you want the minimum internet connection to d/l the blockchain to start increasing at 16x times that rate, lol :D

You have no point to be made. Shooting for "the minimum internet connection" is stupidity. The minimum internet connection of which I am aware was unable to download last year's blockchain. All things being equal, more nodes are good. However, stifling adoption of bitcoin is not worth catering to the lowest common bandwidth denominator - who won't run nodes anyway.

It's not about targeting dial-up users, it's about targeting the majority of users. Who do not even have 10 Mbit/s. C'mon, you can do better than this.

If there is consistently demand for >1.01 MB worth of transactions every 10 minutes, then users will either pay enough to get their transaction confirmed within ~1 block or their transaction will likely not get confirmed at all, as the required fee to get a transaction of a particular size will be increasing.

It is in the miners' best interests to confirm transactions that pay the largest fee on a per unit of size basis. In other words, a miner will confirm transactions in their found blocks that maximize their total block reward.

I think it is generally fair to say that blocks have been generally full as of recently.

The reason why I like to use Bitcoin is because using Bitcoin is cheaper then using a credit card. The ~$0.20 transaction fees necessary to get a transaction confirmed may not be enough to make using a credit card more economical, however if Bitcoin transaction fees rise enough, then using Bitcoin will no longer be cheaper then a credit card.

Why do you think that each of the 7.5 billion people on the planet will suddenly start using Bitcoin? Adoption (and in turn transaction growth) is not going to explode overnight, but will rather grow over time.

As transaction growth (and in turn the necessary -- and actual -- block size, and the blockchain size) increases, hopefully the capacity of various technologies necessary to run a full node will increase, and the unit cost of such technologies will hopefully decrease. Based on history, I have no reason to believe otherwise.

At least now we have less than 5.000 unconfirmed transactions, this week show to you all an alert even so it's more fast than others transfer methods even with a big chaos.

3.000 now :)

False. Stop thinking that there is some kind of singular entity (i.e. "the Mempool"). In other words, stop thinking that one service contains all of the unconfirmed transactions of the network in their mempool. This website (e.g.) shows over 15 000  (https://bitcoinfees.21.co/) in their mempool (my node is between 15 and 20k right now).

---

That said, it surely has cleared up nicely now.

target the majority of users to run a full bitcoin node and at the same time ask them to TX on LN.
bitcoin will be the settlement layer used by elites, which is ran by 1000's of average joe nodes

Well, I have missed that part. Last time I read about it, it was 1.7 to 1.8 MB, which is still substantial, but still modest considering that some 18 months ago, there was a proposal from leading BTC developers to raise the block size to 8 MB.

So this crisis is over, but I have no doubt there will another one not far from now.

Regular Bitcoin transactions will only be able to make use of 0.7 - 0.8 MB of the increase, because the 3 MB in the increase is for signatures only. Lightning will add enough extra signature MB's to use what standard transactions can't.


When you say "leading BTC developers", you're referring to Gavin Andresen & Mike Hearn? I think you mean "former BTC developers"

This is the problem that bitcoin is now encountering. Instead of moving forward it is moving backward. I just noticed that every time the price of bitcoin increases the transactions will take a long time to confirm. So I say that there is a connection between mining and the increase in bitcoins price. The moment the price of of bitcoin inflates the miners cannot cope up with the transactions traffic.

Well, you can't call something that is 2-2.1x marginal though, regardless of what was proposed. If I created a proposal with 100 MB blocks, I could just call BU modest then? Besides, there is no way that 8 MB blocks would be accepted today in terms of safety and resource usage.

A lot of people don't seem to understand that it's not possible to largely scale Bitcoin (in its current form) on-chain while preserving decentralization. Regardless of what block size limit you put on there, those are just patches to a gun wound.

Those events are not related at all. "Miners can't cope" is also misleading. The consensus rules dictate the maximum amount of data/transactions that can be transferred, not the miners.

I remember you saying a few days ago that there is a clear "unbroken trend up". Though I don't agree that it is evident from the chart you offered as a proof (it should be considered as flat there, at best), I do agree that the overall trend shows an increasing number of daily transactions on average. In fact, I myself (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1689228.0) suggested to use the amount of daily transactions as a metric for evaluating Bitcoin adoption rates. And now you start basically claiming that we are not there yet...

How come really?


It is marginal in the sense it will be consumed in less than no time

It seems that this thread has attracted a lot of users who are more or less experienced both in blockchain specifics and how the update system for Bitcoin works in general, and some of you will surely drop in to see what's new here. I encountered the following post right now and want to hear your comments on this:


So, is it a real deal or just a usual bunch of crap?

Like alot of these posts, it's cleverly framed.


It contains carefully selected elements of truth, in order to appear like a reasonable person making a reasonable assessment. Someone could easily get it this wrong.

The truth is that although some pools have come out against it, they're not a very high proportion of the current hashrate (~ 5%, which is the same 5% not needed to achieve 95% in 1 difficulty period for activating the fork). And the pools that haven't begun to signal support also have not explicitly ruled it out either, they simply haven't expressed anything so far.

So, as I got it, there is still a non-zero possibility of SegWit being rejected by some miners, right? If a certain percentage of them does just that (i.e. reject SegWit), does it mean that SegWit won't be applied and all efforts put into developing it will be lost in vain? I don't quite understand why things are done this way in Bitcoin. If they are really done so, of course...

By which time SegWit should be activated?

There is a risk that some miners will reject it, yes. But the window of opportunity is a rolling 2016 block frame, similar to how moving averages in line graphs operate. That means if Segwit signalling was teetering around at 92-93% of the previous 2016 blocks, even a bit of random good luck on the part of the pools who are signalling Segwit could tip it over the finishing line. That does of course, work in reverse also, bad luck for Segwit supporting pools could cause a dip in the acceptance signalling rate. I'm optimistic, although it could easily be a little more nail-biting than previous soft-forks.


It's difficult to predict. Extrapolating the current trend is a little meaningless IMO, but you can see it here (http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ver9-2k.png), FWIW

Interesting. So the 4MB that Core 0.13.1 can create is known to be absolutely safe, while 8MB is out of the question.

So where is the research supporting this published?

Now I have got my payment really fast I think that we need more miners to get faster transactions because too much transactions is happening right now maybe prize for miners will go up and then more and more miners wil go to work even more and invest more and then fees wil be little higher and we will get faster our payments.

Either I am writing unclearly, or ...

I think it should be obvious that when I say "we do not need such raw technological capability today", I am referring to the absurd notion -- articulated upthread by Carlton Banks -- that we would need to increase blocksize by a factor of 100,000 immediately.

Well, we do not yet know whether or not The SegWit Omnibus Changeset will reach the 95% adoption rate necessary for activation.

There is a school of thought that non-activation of SegWit will indeed lead to an implosion of value due to a strangulation of utility. And this might further serve to protect the vested interests of those who invested in Blockstream. This may be why a rather extremely hogh adoption rate for activation was chosen - to ensure it did not ever get activated. This is a notion that requires accepting several connections that are not yet supported by evidence. However, it has not been disproven either, and some evidence does indeed point in that direction.

OTOH, GMax has recently made noises about the possibility of switching it on at 51%, so...

Let's just hope we can reach 95% eventually. I always thought it was too high, but now that it's set that way, I don't see how we can change it without creating a lot of controversy. Let's just wait and an the bitcoin unlimited/bitcoin.com morons will eventually run out of money to keep bribing miners into that shit and we will see 100%

You don't get it, absolutely

You basically say that we will already have all those capabilities (network bandwidth, storage capacity, processing power, etc) by the time when we actually need them, thanks to technological advances, mind-boggling break-throughs and other buzz words that people so love to repeat. Okay, let's assume that it might be so, since we can't deny that for sure (though this is debatable). But at the same time, you claim that we, today, are already hitting some limits (namely, the blocksize limit), and nothing is effectively done to overcome these issues. In other words, wtf are you talking about even if SegWit activation is still undecided?

lololololololol

Yeah j, exactly what I said, verbatim. As we can all see, lol


You can tell these people know they've lost when all they have is this kind of facile nonsense. If I was your boss, j, I'd dock your wages for not trying properly.

You don't get it, absolutely

You basically say that we will already have all those capabilities (network bandwidth, storage capacity, processing power, etc) by the time when we will actually need them, thanks to technological advances, mind-boggling break-throughs and other buzz words that people so love to repeat. Okay, let's assume that it might be so, since we can't deny that for sure (though this is debatable). But at the same time you claim that we, today, are already hitting some limits (namely, the blocksize limit), and nothing is effectively done to overcome these issues. In other words, wtf are you talking about?
[/quote]

You don't get it, absolutely.

I am pointing out that the argument against increasing the blocksize directly by changing the maxblocksize parameter, solely because today, technology dies not accommodate Visa scale upon a decentralized blockchain, is absurd. That is what the fuck I am talking about.

But of course, you know this already, and merely are pestering.

Everything he said is indeed really confusing, because all the existing technologies in the bitcoin only sourced in the mines, so for the issue of the confirmation late because there are indeed some cause they do. and most often done fee that does not fit by the standards that have been recommended or prescribed. So this is all because of human error and not because of technology that works in the bitcoin, if you don't believe then it could prove in the way that suits you

Under what pretense? My boss is not invested in cryptocurrency, nor in killing it.

Why did you try to pretend that I said the precise opposite of what I really said, j?

What are you babbling about, Cton? I was merely asking you to clarify your declaration.

You still don't get it

I'm not talking about setting that maxblocksize parameter to 100Gb right now, I'm not even talking about it as such. I just show that you are pretty much disconnected from reality. At first, you start saying that there are serious issues at hand and eagerly try to prove your point. I can understand that, really. Then you jump into the far future and start claiming that everything will be tip-top even if the block size gets increased to 100Gb. But what about current issues after all, why they are still bugging us, today, not in the distant future?

Seeing as you are unable to keep focus for more than a page, allow me to complete the (obvious by implication) thought:

I think it should be obvious that when I say "we do not need such raw technological capability today", I am referring to the absurd notion -- articulated upthread by Carlton Banks -- that we would need to increase blocksize by a factor of 100,000 immediately if we are to support continued adoption by direct modification of maxblocksize.

I've quoted your false reporting of my words already, trolling deeper now isn't going to work.

Well, you are the person who initially tied my conversation with Carlton Banks into my conversation with you. You misunderstood what I was saying about the rate of change required to support onchain transaction increases, with our conversation that average recent actual blocksize directly contradicts your assertion that Chinese miners were at that time artificially sabotaging the system by choking transaction inclusion.

Ad hominem, followed by refusal to support, is duly noted.

Your trolling is a well known fact. It's not ad hom, when it's the truth.

And answer my question: Why did you try to pretend that I said the precise opposite of what I really said, j?

Don't worry about it jbreher. All he ever does when he's losing an argument is call someone a troll. That's like the pot calling the kettle black (no racial pun intended).

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lwaushdOao1r1blb3.gif#carlton%20banks%20dance%20gif

http://media.giphy.com/media/maBJSUpOQoQ2Q/giphy.gif

The fact is the unconfirmed transactions just prove Bitcoin is not ready for prime time. That's why it's still in beta after all these years. I suspect the same group of devs are working on Bitcoin that are working on the new forum. They will probably be released from beta at the same time. LOL

i didnt know that the core software is still in beta phase and i have found no details regarding that even while searching,i thought unconfirmed transactions are present because there is an attack on the network or the miners are avoiding low fees to pass through

0.13.1

I've not seen a recent official declaration (maybe since Gavin's exit?), but FOSS conventions being what they are...

Small Snip-bit of CB,
broken record.  :D



 8)

FYI:
CB sees Trolls Everywhere, thinks it normal.   :D
https://cdn.meme.am/instances/400x/51846186.jpg

This might just mean a lot more people are using bitcoins and creating transactions, which is a good sign. More people are adopting bitcoin and using it in transactions. Yeah, it's a problem right now, but it's a good problem to have.

To begin with, it was not your conversation with Carlton Banks since it was not (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1690349.msg16970731#msg16970731) you (nor was it Carlton Banks) who started this topic on increasing block size to increase the transaction rates. You joined this discussion in pretty much the same way as I did, and in fact, you did it after (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1690349.msg16973415#msg16973415) me, so there is hardly any reason to make it look as if I intervened in your conversation with Carlton Banks. Further, my assumption of the Chinese miners artificially ignoring transactions is in no way relevant to this discussion, nor has it been proven wrong itself (just in case)...

So what's your point really?

maybe it is because of the low minor fee that the people are being able to give .or the miners have being able to solve the issue t all .or it would be difficult for others .kudoos :)

Yes, it is still listed in Github as in beta. I actually have to give them props for that. They know it's not ready and they list it as such. Gavin Andresen, wherever he is, has said over and over again,  "Bitcoin is an experiment and you shouldn’t invest your life’s savings. You should use it at your own risk.”

Another famous quote from Andresen, "The currency’s value is built almost entirely on speculation, so any indication that the system is less than bulletproof can cause a major price shock".

I am a Bitcoin user. I've mined more Bitcoin in the beginning than most of you will probably ever own. I come off as "Debbie Downer" all the time because I tell the truth. I want people to see what Bitcoin is right now, not what it has the potential to be 40 years from now. I've had lots of friends on this forum and personally that lost lots of money using Bitcoin. It's easy to say "it's not bitcoins fault Mark Karpeles was a crook". While that's technically true, it's also true that he was the only exchange in town for a long time. Bitcoin gave him the opportunity to steal from all of us. While computer security is the individuals fault, Bitcoin having no big bank fraud protections and being used from insecure computers allows stupid people to be ripped off (not that I considered Allinvain stupid).

I just want everyone to know what they're dealing with and accept the risk. That way when you lose your money and go running to mommy government to fix it I can laugh at you. LOL

You misunderstood what I was saying about the rate of change required to support onchain transaction increases, with our conversation that average recent actual blocksize directly contradicts your assertion that Chinese miners were at that time artificially sabotaging the system by choking transaction inclusion.

I get the feeling segwit will not activate

There is a Chinese pool operator who wanted to bet Greg maxwell 1000 btc yesterday that segwit will not even reach 51% and Greg refused the bet.....

https://m.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5f07m2/gambling_of_1000_bitcoin_segwit_soft_fork_wont/

I have never heard of that person before. He's related to some LTC pool, but besides that I have no idea "what pool" he operated in Bitcoin. Maxwell's decision to refuse such a stupid bet shows rational thinking. Accepting such a bet gives people added monetary incentive to fight against Segwit.

---

Blocking Segwit and calling for on-chain scaling makes you somewhat of a hypocrite FYI.

So how does that support your claim that everything will be tip-top in the future, when huge block sizes will be possible thanks to the expansion in network bandwidth, storage capacities, processing power, etc? While minor problems, which don't even require the tiniest part of the future technological improvements, still cannot be solved for longer than a year, today? Previous congestion of the scale we saw recently happened in the summer of 2015...

And while we are at it, it is still not proven that this transaction jam was not deliberately caused by miners themselves

If you bothered to read the LN Network Paper, it states that OnChain BlockSize will have to be Increased.  :P
Reference: https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf


 8)

FYI:
1 Business may make hundreds of transactions per day , and they calculate someone only making 3 transactions per year.  :P
If that does not prove Core is up to some shenanigans with SegWit , then you are not paying attention.  :D

Well, it obviously will not be, if we do not allow it. I'd like to at least remove the artificial barriers that currently prevent this. Why is that so hard to understand?


This is not a technological problem, but rather a self-imposed management problem.


I struggle with trying to discern any relevance to this.

It doesn't matter. Without resolving current issues first, it doesn't make any sense to talk about future requirements and necessary technological advances to meet these requirements. It is not even so much about these issues as such as the lack of any real attempts at coming to a solution. Or, at least, to an agreement about how to resolve them in a constructive way. It is like dreaming about wedding when you have just been walked out on...

You have to deal with reality and harsh facts, and not get lost in wishful thinking and pipe-dreaming


So why have you been constantly referring to that in your own posts if you don't see any relevance yourself?

It's not really that bad or even unexpected. Bitcoin is "private money" with no formal control structure. Innovation springs from the removal of restrictions. Many major businesses (Google, Apple etc.) have benefited from removing the normal strictures of corporate control and putting pool tables, video games and bean bags in common areas to allow their employees to just "play" if they want to. It allows a freedom of thought that fosters innovation.

The downside to that freedom is a loss of control. Bitcoin benefits from that same freedom. No one is in charge. Developers (people normally controlled by the company), for the most part, keep Bitcoin headed in a single beneficial direction. But, without a boss/company/government controlling them they can and do have very different directions in mind that splinter the focus (segwit, classic, bla bla). That is the biggest reason Bitcoin is stagnating and splintering in development but it's also the reason Bitcoin exists. The lack of strict structure and control is a double edged sword.

Bitsquare wallet attack (more than 5 connexions per IP with differents ports) and Mempool rise ...

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img923/80/04Eclo.png

https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions

https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin/

Just wait for r/btc folk to jump with theories of real world usage with sudden exponential growth during random times of the week. ::)

https://i.imgur.com/1SEEpFO.png

This picture represents mempool TX count.

yep, same here.

http://statoshi.info/dashboard/db/memory-pool

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img921/7361/zt5hrT.png


http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img921/6999/Vfow7t.gif

65 000 tx in mempool now.