Bitcoin Forum

...

As I write there is another huge number of transactions in limbo.

Time to solve this problem, guys (lead developers).  Shape-up and fix this.

I grow somewhat disenchanted w/ BTC, even w/ paying higher fee (when I can) or w/ acceleration.

Oh no not again. :-[
I just hope my send isn't one of those unconfirmed transactions.
I sent a $0.46 fee to send just $50 and that almost bare minimum blockchain.info told me I can send it and get it sent within 60 minutes.
Last time this happened it took 24 hours to get atleast 1 confirmation with the same amount sent as this one.
I thought they were getting this problem fixed with raising the transaction's miner fee before hand? :-\

Anytime BTC unconfirmed transactions are more 10,000 ,
I use LTC or Eth or Doge until it drops back down.


 8)

Bitcoin scaling is imminent, we need to implement the new feature, no matter SegWit, BU or 8 MB, only scaling can solve the huge number of transactions issue. Slow speed and high transaction fees kill bitcoin's larger adoption.

The amount you sent would not cause a problem, the size could be. If your transaction was made up of many inputs then the fee you added would not be enough.
Even with a single input transaction i would have doubled that fee.

The number of unconfirmed transactions reached 91k and is still growing. I never seen something like this, it's brutal.
But it happens every time when bitcoin price is soaring, the higher the price will be the higher number of unconfirmed transaction we will see.

So far this situation confirms one fact - Bitcoin is great store value asset, but mediocre payment system/currency.

They already have a solution. It is called Segwit. Thanks to politics and self interests of the people on top of the food chain it will never be activated. What you should be doing is tell the miners to shape up and make a move. Segwit or Bitcoin Unlimited? It is time to make their pick. Maybe they have other plans and will drag this stale mate for years.

I didn't about this but it looks like this problem has been always in the network. I knew it because when I had some transactions a while ago it has delay but I don't really take it very hard because I know after a few more minutes or hours my transaction will be confirmed. And upon checking my transaction is still on the queue.  ::)

there are a lot of problems in the network. I encountered one issue of the tx size expansion with one input and one output, whose size is 3.5k byte, insane.   

That is very not likely. Tx size is contingent upon number of inputs and outputs.

Can you please post the transaction you are referring to.

Yep, I have two unconfirmed transactions.  I actually bought something online with bitcoin, and now it's not going to ship until my payment makes it through the blockchain.  Fuck this.  It would have been SOOOOO much easier to pay with a debit card.  This is the absolute LAST TIME I spend bitcoin.  If anyone is wondering why bitcoin will fail as a currency, it's this.

Yes, this is something that is very annoying and will probably give you a bad effect. For we all don't have plenty of time to continue to oversee every transaction is confirmed. The problem now is the growth of the bitcoin's getting high, but the makers of the bitcoin failed to appear for any growth. I have the same problem like this, and this is very disappointing. So, I now have started saving bitcoin into warehouses and waiting for the right time to use it again

Not only you. More than 24 hours here... This is killing us.

Actually I bought special games bundle from G2A.com today for BTC.
I gotta say that my purchase was confirmed within couple minutes (they are using BitPay to process their BTC transactions).
So when you include hefty amount of fee there is no problem with unconfirmed transactions - it is unfortunately a workaround rather than solution for the problem.

Also, if your transaction is stuck - you can use Transaction Accelerator to push it: https://www.viabtc.com/tools/txaccelerator/ (https://www.viabtc.com/tools/txaccelerator/)

I have just sent some bitcoin with 20,000 satoshi as fee for my 191 bytes transaction and it got confirmed in first block. This fee is still low when moving large amount of bitcoin so increasing fee during situation like this is enough to get it through.

However this block size issue will encourage people to use other alts for sure.

click on that little blue link saying ON in front of ADVANCED VIEW on blockchain.info/tx/.... and you realize that it is not one input and one output, instead it is multiple inputs on the left size but coming from one address so BC.I is only showing 1 address (also don't mistake address with input)

This type of thing happens pretty often and the people that use Bitcoin BTC should already know of the consequences of sending money via Bitcoin. The transactions could get quicker if the person pays a large fee ($6.00+). Yet I know it would be easier if the person purchases an item with a debit/credit card, personally that feeling of paying with the computer is pretty cool.

If anyone wants faster transactions while paying low transaction fees then visit this website to accelerate the transaction:


Note that the max accelerations on the website is limited to only 100 transactions per hour.

Or click open the Client then close it. Keep doing it to get more peers.

Edit: Slark posted it as well, thanks.

I was caught in the middle of the storm... Three transactions on the same day. Thanks for pointing out this tool, I hope it works.

there is one tricky way to lower your transaction fee on your sending, and it was always overlooked here

simply use a different wallet for every transaction, and avoid making transaction too big, the cost will remain at the minimum which will be equal to the average, right now still a bit high 40k satoshi

what consequences? there shouldn't be any consequences to begin with. if the block size is increased and if there were no spam attack there should have been any problem at all.

bitcoin is not about "paying with a computer" if that is what you want then use credit cards online. and also using debit/credit cards has 0 fees when purchasing stuff where i live!

and if we end up paying high fees, crazy like $6 or even 1-2 bucks then that would be death of bitcoin as a currency.

viabtc is a good service but it is not a solution. it is a temporary get away if you are lucky, since they have small portion of the hashrate and obviously mine few blocks a day.

we need a serious solution for the block size and also fighting spam attacks.

I'll try to use your advice next time, tnx. But would you be so kind to explain what do you mean by "avoid making transaction too big"?

And one more thing. Can we control the number of inputs using an online wallet? I think we can't unfortunately and that's why sometimes we find ourselves in situations like I was recently. I paid a decent fee for my transaction but the other guy(second input) paid nothing and the transaction was stuck for over 30 hours. Is there a way to prevent this from happening?

there are imput and output when you send your transaction, a transaction size is determinated by how many imput and output are added to it

by using a new wallet that only have one address, every time you need to spend, you have not added any imput or output because that wallet is brand new every time, and that address is used only one time

Finally! The tool worked for me, thanks @Slark and others

I see many miners are not active for 24 hours and maybe they will come up when the morning enjoy an additional fee piled up :)

also another way which you may already be using is that you can start using "compressed private keys" which most new wallets are now using. these private keys start with "K" or "L"" and when you make a transaction, the signature they create is slightly smaller than the "uncompressed" private keys starting with "5" making your fees a tiny bit cheaper.

i think it is best that instead of making new topics with titles saying there are X number of unconfirmed transactions we need to start making topics talking about solutions and how to force those solutions on miners.

otherwise we talking about thousands of transactions being unconfirmed is not constructive.

Right now, it has declined to 71,000+. This is definitely not good for the popular adoption of Bitcoin. What this situation essentially means is that if you are paying a smaller transaction fee, then you may need to wait for one or two days for the transaction to get confirmed. A logical solution could have been to increase the block size to 8MB, through a hard fork. But some shady people with questionable intentions are blocking this move.

Is the lack of on chain scaling killing other business models like colored coins?

These systems make micro transactions, are they still viable?

I don't know for other web wallets but using currently bc.i there is no the option the user to choose the address/es which he wants to spend from. Bc.i has an algorithm about it. More over even though is handy for mobile bitcoin payments using the functionality 'pairing smartphone with web account' it's extremely bad the computation of the transaction fees. I have the feeling that always without taking into account the network load their option 'after 60 minutes' is about 65sat/byte

It did have 61 sat/B listed on the transaction from the 64 sat/B on the other transaction I did.
So yes I agree I should of added more to transaction fee so to get it to confirm in an appropriate timely manner.
I also wanted to pay the absolute bare minimum to do it though. :-\
This is where the failure and doubtfulness comes into play with not knowing when these backlogs of confirmations will come into just wanting to get it sent within 24-48 hours before the rejection on the blockchain might occur.

i guess the big activity of laundering the fund, because the way to remove the trace is to make a lot of unrelated transaction. hope this is gonna be solved within a couple of days.

I was able to see that one on which the unconfirmed transaction raises to 90k+ which is really high and anytime I saw this spam I eventually not making any transactions related on transferring bitcoins because I know even I will put high tx fee I would still need to wait for longer.How can this problem would be solved in longer runs.

That's the problem: we (the users) can't force miners to do anything! Even worse: we do the exact opposite: we compete on higher fees, and since most wallets use "dynamic fees" now, we all pay more and we're still waiting! Miners now get 10% of the block reward as fees, and it's growing, without processing more transactions.
Bitcoin can't grow without more transactions.

I would to if there was actually any use for any of the above coins changing for fiat.

So exactly what are you using BTC for that the others won't work?

Be aware , when converting from Fiat to Crypto, you can use LTC or ETH and then after they arrive at the exchange convert to BTC on the exchange and then to FIAT, and if you need to send out to another exchange , convert back to LTC or ETh.  Save money on transaction fees also.

 8)

FYI:
If you are buying something retail , you are better off using a credit card or a gift card.  :)
When BTC is not overloaded, buy the gift cards with BTC that way no waiting when BTC is overloaded.  

As suggested its good to use gift cards for commercial purchase right now, if the confirmation delay is a big issue. With the current price increase lot of sell order transactions might be there. This could have increased to a number above 80000.

I can't buy with gift cards or them shitcoins you talk of that I buy or sell with BTC. What exactly? Has nothing to do with you I'm afraid.

It's pointless to complain each time mempools are stacked, because it's a certainty that it will happen again, again, again and again. Nothing will be done until the egos of certain pools are being put aside, where they start signalling support for Segwit. It's either to include a proper fee according to the situation so your transaction gets confirmed within a block or two perhaps three, or simply don't complain.

The enourmous amount of unconfirmed transactions is NOT acceptable, i think the devs have realized that they should do something,

but guess what, it seems they don´t care. Maby BTC was the first and original one, but wont be the one which will be used in the end ...

The fees are way to high AND the transactions take way to long to confirm!

Up to now there is no consensus as to how they will increase the blocksize. Some miners decided to use Block unlimited so they can mine properly but this king of method has many flaws. Its better that all miners should agree to adjust the blocksize to 8 mb but there are only 24% out of the total miner population that are into this.

This pretty much defeats the purpose of having a cryptocurrency that is fast, cheap and reliable to use. Basically goes against everything bitcoin stands for.

No offense, considering those other coins are currently transferable and BTC is not,  you may want to reevaluate your definition of Shitcoin.

So what you are saying is you are doing something illegal, in that case you should be using Dash or Monero.

BTC transactions are traceable.  :D

 8)

- buy a game on steam
- pay for my VPN subscription
- add money to my Microsoft account
- recharge my mobile
- buy something from OpenBazaar
- pay for lots of other small services
- buy giftcards that you seem to be so fund of.
- transfer money to someone else through bitcoin so that he can sell it easily all the way on the other side of the word and there is noone accepting altcoins for fiat there.

and many more that i can not think of right now (since the above are things that i have done but there are more), and none of them are possible with any of the altcoins. specially not with ETH :D

I think you are missing the point at the moment your BTC Transfers is taking days, and may time out of the mempool , requiring you to resend.

bitpay.com converts BTC to a Debit card , which you can use to pay your stuff with NO WAIT.
- buy a game on steam
- pay for my VPN subscription  
- add money to my Microsoft account
- recharge my mobile
- buy something from OpenBazaar
- pay for lots of other small services
_______________________________________________________

As for your silly reference here:  transfer money to someone else through bitcoin so that he can sell it easily all the way on the other side of the word and there is noone accepting altcoins for fiat there.

If anyone is so stupid they can't convert LTC to BTC on an exchange and then cash out to Fiat from the exchange , They are too stupid to use Crypto
If BTC Transfers are not working , then you can't transfer BTC, Genius.  :P
Better mail a check to those poor posers.
Or use moneygram at walmart, it is faster than BTC : https://www.walmart.com/cp/online-money-transfers/1089406

 8)

with increasingly heavy demand on bitcoin more and more people are joining the network and its a good sign for us because more people means more opportunities and more opportunities means  better and improved lifestyle. so to make the network lag free our developers should really make a strong change in the system to make the network work smoothly.

Ok now. I just sent a $1 transaction and put $0.46 as a miners fee for the transaction to confirm in 10 minutes as they said at the bottom of the screen like it said it would after sending it.
60 minutes later nothing has been confirmed yet.
The thing was sent with 87 sat/B.
So what the hell now do these people have to say about sending enough for the miners fee to get it to confirm properly

One of those transaction is mine.  I have an unconfirmed transaction for 24 hours, funny that even a 31k satoshi transaction fee is not enough now in sending a 0.015  BTC.  I wonder when will the developer fix this issue, when will they act together as one to fix the problem.  Are miners intentionally setting the transaction fee they pick up that high?

Obviously not. Because I intentionally put added a transaction fee of almost 50% worth of the sent amount towards it. So that is not the reasoning behind with which they choose to send depending on the fee amount put along with the sent amount for the transaction.
I did it as a test to see if it did but my findings show it definitely is not! :-X

Does this mean that dev really need a tweak on the block size of Bitcoin to enable more transaction to be accommodated or activate segwit to enable offchain transactions for faster transfer?  If it is not the miner, definitely it is the block size, is it?

Oh common, this is the usual thing common problems in the blockchain, until now my transaction was unconfirmed its been 10 hours ago. I told and asked it to my friend, He just said to me if you want fast transaction give the highest fee amounted 1 or 2$, you've got to be kidding me. :-\

This happens almost each time their is price increase as most of them are ready to sell their coins on every rise as they are traders so the transaction delay is common

Stop complaining due. Please increase the fee if you want to proceed your transaction. Or if you do not have money, you must have to wait in order to be confirmed. I have just sent 0.15 bitcoin with the fee of 70k satoshi and the miners confirmed it after 3 minutes. LOL. You can increase the fee, you know.

So your saying on a 0.001btc send 0.0004401btc wasn't enough?
That is nearly 50% of the send there guy. ::)

This is not new anymore and as the years goes by bitcoin transactions are increasing which causes for this many unconfirmed transactions on the network which causes the delay.

But we still need BU and SegWit because they are the one who are implementing the blockchain, and scaling can not solve the huge number of transaction issue, the problem here is that, the blockchain size is not big enough anymore to support the transactions that we are processing each day because of the rapidly growing of the bitcoin users population all around the world.

So, right now, we don't need to give negative thoughts or any offenses to blockchain, even though the fee each transaction just got higher than its price before, still, it is not enough for the blockchain to get this kind of feedbacks to us, they are doing the best that they can do, and we must also wait until this problem is over. It will take time, but you are sure that you are all still going to receive your bitcoins.

Transaction amount is not relevant in calculating the proper fee.
What is relevant is the transaction size in bytes, how many inputs and outputs in the transaction.
You can send a million $$$ cheaper and with a faster confirmation than a few $$$ if the size of inputs/outputs in the former transaction is smaller than the latter.

Bitcoin Novice here and probably the bitcoin user you hate....

I use bitcoin solely to gamble with and use on offshore sportsbook.  i received a payout from one of them for the $475 amount and it got confirmed and i tried to then transfer it to my girlfriends wallet on coinbase VIA my block chain wallet so coinbase doesnt get all pissed off and see im using it for gambling.  my question is when i made my transaction to transfer my total bitcoins to my gf wallet theres no where that coinbase prompts you to send a higher fee and i just send the one they just tell you it is is there a sport im missing where i could of adjusted a fee... cause i have been waiting over 24 hours for this transaction

https://blockchain.info/address/1BCdTgCjUotwcJjoRjcTRPKnbw9ZAmXrxz

whats wrong with it? any thing i can do to speed it along?

The problem here is the future, if the transaction fee keep on increasing doesn't it means that  bitcoin transaction will be more expensive than bank transfers or any third party processor that we are avoiding, the reason why we are using Bitcoin?  Now this is a battle of who is the highest payer get his transaction confirmed fast and not a third world country friendly.

and are you trying to say "come on"?

Your transaction fee is only 65 sat/B, this is not sufficient for the current backlog to be processed quickly.
You could try accelerator https://www.viabtc.com/tools/txaccelerator/
your transaction id: c8b7c7f840b5658adfd7628736ab0bb6d0451b4dfc7d5d3ed9b51cf7642f7e33

It does look that way doesn't it? :-\
But I will give him the benefit of the doubt in my translating these non-english the first language speak that is common on this forum.
He is probably, from what I can see into it clearly enough if you will, "it's common..". From after what he said right after.

But from what I was saying about my 1mbtc I sent it finally did complete with the nearly $0.46/87 satoshi per Byte.

It took over 2 hours and 15 minutes to completely confirm. When before I sent it blockchain.info was saying it would take 10~minutes to confirm with the amount I sent along with the transaction being the miner's transaction fee that I did specify. Details: 454193 ( 2017-02-22 14:14:54 + 134 minutes )

It may not be new anymore, but 81,000 is the biggest lag I have ever noticed since I started collecting Bitcoins. I am not a conspiracy theorist, but we need to analyze the reasons behind this.

It just depends on what node you look at as every node has a different number of transactions 'stuck' in their mempool. Reason could be more usage in a very short time due to the higher price, spam attack in order to make people panic, or a combination of both. In case of a spam attack it's highly likely that it is coming from the alternative sides such as BU as they want to make Bitcoin look bad because it can't handle that many transactions.

...

OK, I just sent off a trx (very simple, 223 bytes) and paid $0.97 fee.  It went out at 3:42 PM (US ET).

That's apparently a big fee, but when I checked the mempool (via blockchain.info), it had 91,000 (!!), so I decided on a big fee.

While writing this post, I checked, and the trx was just confirmed (3:47), and the mempool is now "down" to 89,000.


This really, really needs to be fixed.  Come to a consensus, guys (developers, miners).  Else you may KILL Bitcoin.

I dont remember anything like this hapening with soo many frequency, this is an issue that the core has to handle once at all, bitcoin cant keep this way, in the begining the tiny fees were an incentive to use bitcoin, but with this issues all people are being forced to raise their fees, soo soon we will be paying the same we do pay with paypal.

Paypal and other regulated payment processors can censor your transactions and seize your money.
Bitcoin was designed to prevent that and gives people unrestricted transfers as they wish.

Bitcoin transaction fees can not be cheap as they were in the past, since that was designed to be
artificially low in order to bootstrap the network. We all know as block award decreases, fees must rise.
Thinking we can lower the fees by raising the block size is a form of transferring those higher fees upon
node operators, thus weakening the backbone of the network, ultimately leading to Bitcoin's failure.

Everything has a cost and lower fees to compete with Paypal and the like is a fantasy. People will use
Bitcoin since it is a counter to the normal financial system as well as unrestricted transference, not
because it has lower fees.

In actuality, the network's fees when high are paid by the users, but when artificially lowered by block
size increase are paid by the nodes. Nodes allow us to function and if we damage them, we damage
ourselves severely. It is like shooting yourself in the foot. Why would you sacrifice this novel system
just to save 0.25 USD?

I've been checking mempool size throughout the day and it has been chaotic, one of the worst times to send a transaction since I started using Bitcoin... I hope devs keep an eye on it too and think carefully and thoroughly if simply having Segwit is indeed enough for the next few years...

After today we can finally say that this is probably one of the top 3 main problems Bitcoin has ever suffered and that we urgently need to scale.

Aaaanndd it may get worse...

If the developers and the miners blow this (screw up implementation), that might be a death-knell.   "Sudden Death" as the whole Bitcoin Ecosystem suffers a horrible blow that prevents new people from coming in and scaring off people like me who are tired of the developers and miners not WORKING (together) to get this fixed.

And it might get even worse...:

If they do not put in a permanent fix (or system or upgrade path), then we may see all of this again in 2, 3, 4 years as BTC keeps growing. It would be thoughtless for them NOT to plan that the system will grow, and hence anticipate future issues.  I hope they are thinking ahead...


*  *  *

AgentofCoin

You raise good points.  It may very well be that costs of the BTC Ecosystem may be higher than alternatives.  And I can live with (say) $0.50 - $1.00 fees (low kb sized trx) as I too value BTC vs. other payment methods.

But, we still may continue to have such problems even if EVERYBODY pays fees like $0.50 and keep the same volumes of trx we see now.

it's the rules, not a bug.

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img922/2958/6md5uC.gif

Well, no.   :)

"It's not the rules, it's a feature."   <== What many of us say, sort of, about Microsoft products.

LOL re the image, sometimes I just want to heft the ol' 12 gauge and blast away.  Although I would prefer a .50 cal...

This has to be a spam attack, has there ever even been a backlog of 81k transactions in the past?
Could be a good thing in the end, if this means that it will be followed by a solution faster.

It all depends on the node of the pool/explorer that you use as reference since there is no general mempool. Each node can decide to not accept transactions with a low fee in their mempool. It's just how you set up your node. If I browse through various block explorers that offer charts of their mempool, then it shows that what we are experiencing today is somewhat of an all time high. Right now one of these explorers has over 100K of unconfirmed transactions in its mempool.

Highest I have seen is about 120,000 pending txs from nodes that have restrictions.

In addition, during times when the btc price is increasing the mempool increases.
Whether that increase is due to the price or the price is due to the mempool size is debatable.

Do you happen to remember when that was? It's interesting to figure out whether or not it was a peak in usage or a spam attack that resulted in such (what I consider to be) an insanely high number. If I look at the current situation, then I think it's purely the result of a peak in the usage due to the price. The majority of the people don't pay a single bit of attention on how the network is doing when transacting.

I dont get why they just dont make block size 5MB or something now?

HD's have gone up since 2013 x3 or 5 in size, and cost about the same?

Satoshi had 33Mb blocks.

1MB is 1984 much.


why why why?

I mean this thing is supposed to run on fees from blocks,

I know the spam issue, but some spam is ok

sighash scaling attack. There's no point in increasing the blocksize without solving that attack vector, the results are much worse than higher fees.

Yes, the largest was in September 2015 and it was actually around 180,000+ pending.
I assume it was mostly spam attacks at the time, I do not have the data now to determine otherwise.
Could have been no fee attacks which took 2-3 days to be dropped.

That was the time (2015) when I began to see unusual random spikes in the mempool.
Some seemed natural, others like the 180,000+ txs did not.

Edit: Here is a picture of mempool data graphed from Statoshi
https://i.imgur.com/X2Cp5wS.png
Find more data at Statoshi's Node - http://statoshi.info/dashboard/db/transactions (http://statoshi.info/dashboard/db/transactions)
Set the date range on the top right.

I have read many comments here that are from people who use Bitcoin who are still unaware of the situation why the unconfirmed transactions issue keeps recurring. There is a need to either activate Segwit or to hard fork to Bitcoin Unlimited or other implementations that increases the block size. Whenever this issue arises it will all go back to the scalability debate. To complicate matters, some Bitcoin users are saying that there is someone spamming the network.

What about Bitcoin 2.0 ?

I mean tons of new fintech unsing the Bitcoin blockchain for implementing new services and new ways of doing things.. Imo THIS is the real revolution that gives value to BTC (fiat value/adoption/replacing old tech).

I will still be a BTC node, whatever diskspace it may cost me, and I know it's not true for everyone.

IMO, Bitcoin is a revolution as big as the event of the Internet, and I trust the community, especially those not doing it for profit, to lead BTC.

Have a nice life everyone !

p.s. I'm not really aware about SegWit or BU..  I left BTC news/reading for about 2 years for now..  I still often buy some with extra money ;)


 

TY Carlton Banks,

your reply poke my curiosity and I've read some more about Segwit/BU stuff..
Good work, thanks for your time, keep up the good work !

Never pay a higher fee man it never fixes anything you just give them extra money actually. Well in a case like this anyway. I do agree they do need to get their stuff together Bitcoin is becoming quite a thing in the world so yeah needs to be faster but also I'm sure Bitcoin never meant to get this far or maybe they did and if they did it would be more confusing as to why they let it get to that kind of number.

Its not really a good advice at all but you do still have some points because even you put up high tx fee as of now confirmation times wont really be the same as usual and  you will still need to wait a little longer compared before but still im doing that behavior.

We are looking at close to 100,000 unconfirmed at this point, these are crazy numbers!

Noise &  Drama

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IT4s-6T__k (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IT4s-6T__k)

This is a good way of resuming my thinking !

It is hard to believe you are not aware of what is going on with the present issues concerning Segwit and Bitcoin Unlimited. As a Bitcoin node operator and a supporter you should make it your responsibility to have your say. You are an active part of the network.

Now that you are aware, are you for Segwit or BU?

With the price of bitcoin rising we are seeing the amount of unconfirmed transaction piling up at the moment i think this is the worst thing that is with bitcoin. The core developers are not making any changes with the increased usage and if it continues like this it will hurt bitcoin without any doubt.

Please stop posting in the forum then search for the threads about the scaling debate of Bitcoin. For your information the Core developers have released an upgrade with Segwit that allows more transactions to be allowed in a block. But for this to happen the miners must upgrade to v 0.13.2 to activate Segwit. It is now in the miners hands and not the Core developers.

Hmm,
unless you have not been paying attention the miners are refusing to allow the BTC core dev to STEAL their future transaction fees.

So segwit has been dead ever since it was offered, so the ball is back in BTC Core Hands ,

BTC Core can Update the Blasted BlockSize and move on, or we all agree BTC Core should be FIRED.
Because they are not doing shit to fix the transactions issues.

 8)

Because the core team are selfish greedy pigs and think you are stupid as they try to ram their agenda down your throat instead of simply increasing the block size.

Their intentions are very questionable. There is a chance that they are trying to obstruct the popular adoption of Bitcoin by arguing against the Block size increase. In future, if the Block size remains at 1 MB, then there will be huge delays in confirming the transactions. So obviously people will dump Bitcoin and move to some other crypto-currency. Perhaps that is what these people want.

Jeezus you monkeys even hear what you are chirping? People (world's top cryptographers) who spent many years developing bitcoin software did it only to kill said software and promote "some other crypto-currency". No wonder Ver can use your mouth holes to his advantage, with reasoning skills of a 3 year old. To you life must seem so simple, why even read something about bitcoin if you can talk talk talk.

Everybody knows that there are absolutely no obstacles to raising block size indefinitely right? I mean, Ver and three trolls have said that so it must be true.

Hey Dufus,

BU will only raise the block size to the point the network can handle it.

Core could have came out with a fixed minuscule 2mb block size hard fork and the miners would have updated to relieve the current transaction problems.
Instead Core goes silent and does absolutely nothing , trying to force segwit down everyone throats.
Core is trying to steal the future fees from the miners, they are not dumb enough to fall for Core Takeover bid.

Core needs to be fired and an entire new dev team brought in , ones that don't work for Bankers trying to take over BTC with LN.

 8)

Hello my little friend with an unjustified sense of entitlement, I am just glad you are not in charge of firing anything other than your own poop rockets. But I could enjoy taking a look at your "entire new dev team", it must be a real show of talent, that one. Meanwhile you are free to continue moaning on this board while bitcoin is evolving. Good luck with your pointless agenda.

PS Bonus point if you manage to read the definition of opensource, look for a special section "how would a forum troll go about firing a dev team in a 15b opensource project", could be an eye-opener.

You are promoting a classic 'false dilemma' fallacy, implying that the only alternative to keeping the blocksize constant is to 'raise it indefinitely'.

No..how about we just go to 2mb so people's transactions can get through?  Instead of having 40k unconfirmed transactions.

I really don't know what is going on but very long waiting time for BTC transactions confirmation really creating serious problems.
I remember that just a few months ago all my transaction was confirmed in a few hours.
Recently, I usually have to wait for more than 24 hours.
Bitcoin is still the most popular crypto currency but if we can't solve problem with unconfirmed transactions, I'm sure that more people will give up from bitcoin and choose other crypto currency.

If you are willing to pay a higher than average transaction fee, then you can expect your transaction to get confirmed in a couple of hours. But the question is whether we need to prioritize such transactions over other pending ones, some of which are in queue for two or three days now. This is going to get worse in the future, as the number of transactions increase. We need to act now.

Are you really just that stupid , or did someone teach you from birth to be a BTC Core ASS Kisser.  :-*

Just curious, my stupid friend.  :D

 8)

Boom and there it is!

BTC Core Cares for Nothing except their own Agenda.
In the Real World, we would have hired new devs last year and been done with their segwit shenanigans.


 8)

Has there ever been an instance where people weren't looking out solely for their own agendas and were instead operating for the good of the rest of the users?  :D

I agree that if we had a system that operated more with the ability to throw bad devs out we likely would have gotten somewhere sooner, but that's what happens when you have decentralization.

This is exactly why it doesn't make sense to have a maximum blocksize at all , as part of the consensus rules.

You guys act like it would be hard , all that has to happen is the Miners sponsor a Dev Team not affiliated with Blockchain's Sponsored BTC Core Dev team.
The New Dev team writes a quick 2mb blocksize update, the miners update , and then their is time for discussions on future updates, when BTC unconfirmed transactions are not taking 3 days to complete.

Old Saying , when the Mule is stuck in a Ditch on Sunday , you don't wait til Monday to get him out.
BTC Core Asshats are doing nothing but waiting!

 8)

it almost happened once.  many big pools and companies signed a joint statement supporting 8mb blocks but ultimately
backed off and erred on the side of caution. 

If things continue in the manner they are now, it likely won't be long before it happens again and we have a much needed fork.

This is precisely why bitcoin isn't ready for the mainstream. Until we can get past the foolish politics of the blocksize debate, we can't scale. There is something to be said about regulation, however you may feel about it ;) If some extraordinary economical event should occur, such as a serious Asian capital flight (in progress), or events similar to the Greek capital exit that occurred during their default, we simply won't be prepared. This issue has grown quite long in the tooth, and at some point we should maybe look at simply getting a new governance board.

Thus has to be fixed, despite if the solution is a consensus. Compare this to the debt ceiling stall/debate that occurred recently in the States. Inaction will simply lead to increased harm.

And although I think a fork is a method of last resort, maybe it's something we need to be considering. Will we allow the world to burn because of ideological differences?

When the mempool gets stuck at a hundred or two thousand, and fees rocket into Dollars, we will all see the stupidity of this Core plan.
A fork will come suddenly, imo.


Well put.

At this moment there are 39,500+ unconfirmed transactions and that is not so cool picture to show off as a bitcoin user. We really need a strong increase in the bandwidth or it will be really difficult to regain the trust and the user base if we lose it. Everyone is asking for fast confirmation with low fees so that should be the top priority imo.

All transactions are confirmed in a matter of minutes. You should really use a modern wallet, not the one which sends txs with 0 fee.

But you are surely free to choose  other crypto currency, best of luck :) Take the other trolls with you who want to send three cents on-chain for free on your way out, please.

"i am satosh", you declare in your sig.

You probably could not be further from the truth.
Maybe try "i am gmax" for more accuracy.

"you are surely free to choose other crypto currency"
Just more 'false dilemma' fallacy.

"All transactions are confirmed in a matter of minutes."
And outright lies!

So far none run stuck, might been lucky. But I am always keeping an eye on https://bitcoinfees.21.co/ to adjust the fee. Mostly forking over like 50cents so far, with a fatal tendency to rise and rise. Both the satoshis amount AND the dollar value are escalating!
On the long term a digital currency must be able to beat the competition, not to exceed them on feeing nickel 'n dime out of customer's pockets.

Thinking everyone lives in a Rich County and can afford up to $1 to transfer 25 cents, shows you don't really think at all do you.
50 cents to $1 US can be alot higher depending on your exchange rate

Examples
Alphabetical order Feb 25, 2017 18:03 UTC
US Dollar?    1.00 USD??    inv. 1.00 USD??
Argentine Peso    15.475000    0.064620
Australian Dollar    1.303951    0.766900
Bahraini Dinar    0.376995    2.652555
Botswana Pula    10.354158    0.096580
Brazilian Real    3.111000    0.321440
British Pound    0.802472    1.246150
Bruneian Dollar    1.404900    0.711794
Bulgarian Lev    1.851750    0.540030
Canadian Dollar    1.309250    0.763796
Chilean Peso    646.800000    0.001546
Chinese Yuan Renminbi    6.867550    0.145612
Colombian Peso    2889.500000    0.000346
Croatian Kuna    6.999600    0.142865
Czech Koruna    25.574950    0.039101
Danish Krone    7.039000    0.142066
Emirati Dirham    3.672650    0.272283
Euro    0.947026    1.055938
Hong Kong Dollar    7.760950    0.128850
Hungarian Forint    292.130000    0.003423
Icelandic Krona    108.850000    0.009187
Indian Rupee    66.645000    0.015005
Indonesian Rupiah    13330.000000    0.000075
Iranian Rial    32422.500000    0.000031
Israeli Shekel    3.691965    0.270858
Japanese Yen    112.144000    0.008917
Kazakhstani Tenge    311.559998    0.003210
Kuwaiti Dinar    0.305125    3.277345
Latvian Lat    0.665570    1.502473
Libyan Dinar    1.425000    0.701754
Lithuanian Litas    3.269890    0.305821
Malaysian Ringgit    4.440000    0.225225
Mauritian Rupee    35.650000    0.028050
Mexican Peso    19.910750    0.050224
Nepalese Rupee    106.927970    0.009352
New Zealand Dollar    1.388118    0.720400
Norwegian Krone    8.376750    0.119378
Omani Rial    0.384500    2.600780
Pakistani Rupee    104.825000    0.009540
Philippine Peso    50.169000    0.019933
Polish Zloty    4.093150    0.244311
Qatari Riyal    3.641200    0.274635
Romanian New Leu    4.277600    0.233776
Russian Ruble    58.487400    0.017098
Saudi Arabian Riyal    3.750600    0.266624
Singapore Dollar    1.404900    0.711794
South African Rand    12.952480    0.077205
South Korean Won    1130.450000    0.000885
Sri Lankan Rupee    151.809801    0.006587
Swedish Krona    9.038650    0.110636
Swiss Franc    1.007700    0.992359
Taiwan New Dollar    30.655000    0.032621
Thai Baht    34.875000    0.028674
Trinidadian Dollar    6.699000    0.149276
Turkish Lira    3.607800    0.277177
Venezuelan Bolivar    9.990000    0.100100

 8)

FYI:  https://bitcoinfees.21.co/
The fastest and cheapest transaction fee is currently 180 satoshis/byte, shown in green at the top.
For the median transaction size of 226 bytes, this results in a fee of 40,680 satoshis.
.00040680  =  .46 US $  or 16.04 Thai Baht  or 6131.8 Indonesian Rupiah

Your .46 cents is UNaffordable in other countries.  :P

If you have auto-fee in your wallet software, it's actually true. Software chooses the average fee in the mempool, transaction confirms in minutes (less than 90)

You know, you should try getting some bitcoin for yourself and maybe use them to see what's what? Beats trolling!

If you were telling the truth, we would not have all of these Topics with people complaining about days before their BTC is received
or even dropping out of the mempools after 72 hours and having to resend.

Has your entitled ass ever left your parents basement, because you seem completly clueless their is a exchange rate between world currencies.
And your .46 Cents in other Countries:

India is the lowest among larger economies with a $0.28/hour rate.  
1.64 hours to paid your transaction fee
or
The absolute lowest federal minimum wage is in Sierra Leone, where workers can expect just $0.03/hour.
15.33 hours to paid your transaction fee

 8)

tell that to my friend who used the default fee in electrum and has been waiting 16 hours for his money since yesterday.

Good, maybe your friend would want to upgrade to a modern wallet now, seeing as his current one can not calculate fee properly.

I guess you do not really understand how bitcoin fees work.  They are dynamic.  There is no 'proper' method as the requirements change.

No, there is. Proper method is calculating a fee that guarantees inclusion in the next block. It's trivial math, you know, adding and dividing numbers. Most wallets figured out how to do it long time ago. Try some.

If that is too hard, there is a service which API you can use, then you don't even need to know how to add and divide numbers! https://bitcoinfees.21.co/ - see, 160 satoshis per byte for an instant confirmation. As you can also see, most of the backlog consitutes txs with 0-40 satoshis per byte, which no sane modern wallet would ever use. These are called spam transactions, sent out by some bad guy promoting big blocks. If you really cared about bitcoin future even a tiny bit, you would understand that working for this guy and promoting including such transactions in the block space is a horribly wrong idea.

Wow...this comment really shows your ignorance. 

There is no guarantee that any transaction will be included in the next block.
It is completely up to the miner what transactions (if any)
they want to include in any particular block.   

Once again, I must tell you to get at least several satoshis and see for yourself how bitcoin actually works, and not tell me your theoretical half-assed knowledge. All transactions sent with an adequate fee are included in the next block 99% of the time, period.

Ok, - a matter of hours - i accept that is a lot more true.
(a "matter of minutes" counted in hours was deceitful at least)

But this fee market is just starting.
Given more time, recommended fees will be counted in Dollars, not Cents.
Can't core understand people are adopting Bitcoin, as satoshi envisaged. Core don't seem to want that.

No problem, this fee and congestion Core plan must happen now to show their failings and induce a sudden fork to (have to) happen.
We just need a bit more time to get through this Core plan of Bitcoin destruction.

by minutes I mean minutes. all txs sent  with 160 satoshis per byte went out in 1-2 blocks, which is anywhere from 0 to 30 minutes. try it at least once...

bitcoin is perfectly fine, what is not fine is the army of trolls pushing their masters political agenda. this we should definitely get rid of, its a nuisance to actual developers and actual community.

https://i.imgur.com/Fdk1skf.png

Too much talk and very few to no action. Why not fork Bitcoin away from the Core developers if you all are so sure of their evil intentions. Remember the other side is also playing the same game. Between the 2, I will go with the lesser evil. Going with Core is also the safer choice. But go ahead, do the hard fork to Bitcoin Unlimited. I almost want to see it happen so that the people against it make their point.

Recently, this situation is ongoing. I was very upset when my transaction is not confirmed though I had to pay a high fee. I would like to know the drivers are doing and where. why they have to this situation occurs repeatedly, this is so bad. all of us would want their transactions quickly. and so do I, I hate to wait

Segwit is just a first aid to this problem, Segwit is not really the solution. They must think of the new way and it must be really fast.
This is the main problem of bitcoin that must be answered. If these is not answered fast then there will come a time that problems will be more and more complicating emerging from the past problems.

We might get along reaching mass adoption without Sierra Leone. However India is a emerging market, most EB-2 green cards arriving from over there. That country isn't exactly sparse-peopled. Same goes for China, Russia, that whole asian continent plate at the moment features only a handfull of full nodes (but probably >50% of the total hashrate, and stuff like Huobi and BTCC)

It's not really about "installing the right wallet"

If you are on a rush then you will surely forced to set high tx fee amount if you dont like the waiting time but on some circumtances even you set above average fee you still need to wait specially when there is spam attack on the network.

It get harder and harder to push transactions over. The fees get higher each day and especially if there is these kinds of events where the unconfirmed transactions are really getting to our nerves. Coinbase is looking like a light in the dark now, since coinbase pays for fees even if it sometimes is really high.

the problem is not that the problem is that correct fee is generally expensive, and i never use autofee for this reason, it's better to try your luck with a low fee

and then maybe accelarate the transaction, if stuck, with another service, some TX are ridiculous high in fee, like 100k+ satoshi, paying that much when you need to send many is stupid

This is not really good. Someone should do something with this. Question is who is that someone. If this continues it will really make bitcoin fall. I have read someone posted about someone that is spamming transactions and spent above a million dollar just for that.
What could be the intentions of this happening? Something sounds really fishy now.

That is what the people from Bitcoin Unlimited will tell you. The real solution is for Bitcoin to have a scalable network working on top of it. Bitcoin itself will still be useful as a settlement layer. Please also be aware that politics and the quest for control is a key factor on why many do not want to activate Segwit.

Didn't we stumpled upon Bitcoin to get away from intermediate layers? Those additional layers tend to held open their hands for some feeees. That nickle'n'dime concept.

A successfull cyber currency could handle bazillions of transfers for nuthin'
Everything below that line isn't exactly a revolution. Bitcoin has to change, to reach these promises.

In this situation, I can foresee the risk of certain Bitcoin exchanges colluding with the miners, in order to prioritize the transactions by their users. For example, Coinbase can make a deal with Ghash or Eligius, and whenever these mining pools mine a block they will prioritize transactions by the Coinbase users. A bit far-fetched, but theoretically possible.

which means they wants to let the people using their services to get their transactions confirmed faster than the rest? or even something similar to selfish mining, not even giving priority for high fees yet not in their service? what the shit are those miners doing, this could have ruined the fairness of competition.

No... no... I am not saying that the miners are already doing something like this. I am just saying that there is a chance of this occurring in the not too distant future. I am just concerned by the way in which some of the miners behave right now. They've got too much power.

Yes, and $1840 per megabyte, so what was your point exactly? If you just wanted to demonstrate your complete intellectual disability, there are simpler ways than crafting a meme.

Miners, or Miningpools? The former have no say whatsoever, merely hand over hashpower.
Eligius pool once did a fair share of zerofee transactions in their blocks. However since flooding the mempool has become a favorite sport this level of altruism is history everywhere.

Bitcoin fees should be pennies not dollars. 

There is no need to charge high fees right now (recent spike in fees is due to artificial blocksize scarcity).

I just love the hypocrisy of these small blockers.   They claim that since the network
isn't completely congested,  there's no problem "right now"... and then claim we need
to address fee based security concerns that won't be an issue for decades.


 

If the BTC price keeps on increasing, fees must rise with it to keep the fees to pennies (0.001 BTC fee would be $10 at only $10,000 per BTC with 1MB blocksize).


You're going to have to admit, BU "scaling" doesn't scale up at all. Even a $20,000 price, which is a pretty modest medium term expectation, would cause untold problems. No-one seriously thinks that blocksizes big enough to give you your penny fees at those price levels is a sane direction to go in.

Fees being pennies vs dollars is such an arbitrary claim
That's like saying:

"Fuck demand and supply, computers need to cost dollars, not hundreds of dollars.

Broken logic

It's not even an attempt at logic, just an unbacked assertion.

If Bitcoin price goes high enough, I bet ya someone will take advantage of new markets which involves instant transfer services for cheaper fees. It would be ironic for BTC.

So, you seem quite sure that people don't care about security of the network and instead always select the cheaper option. I can accept that bet, how much you want to wager?

This problem cannot be solved as long as we don't have bigger block size I think, too many transaction in every second and miners can't afford all of them. I don't know how the devs team going to solve this problem as they still argue each other. Now we have 37866 unconfirmed transaction and still increasing. It makes us have to wait longer than before and pay more fee in every transaction.

Yeah, you get this impression from reading this forum :) Fact is, there is almost no argument on scaling between bitcoin developers, path is quite clear. The path is however blocked by some businessmen who do not agree with it.They have neither expertise nor a clear understanding, they just have profit in mind and the proposed solution would kill their future profit. So they invent one stumbling block after another - classic/xt/bu - just to not allow bitcoin to progress to infinite scalability.

But bitcoin will shake them off, like all the other small obstacles like China and government regulation. Just takes time.

Lol. Obviously this is false.

Many prominent developers have long advocated for a simple
blocksize increase including Gavin Andressen, Mike Hearn, Jeff Garzik, and Satoshi Nakamoto.

Even core claimed "lack of consensus" as their reason why changes haven't been made.
You simply cannot claim there is no controversy with any shred of credibility.

No. I became interested in Bitcoin because it is a decentralized, censorship resistant, value transfer network. I do not know what you mean about intermediate layers but the Lightning Network can be seen as a leverage against the greedy miners.


For a Legendary you still have not realized how inefficient and slow consensus is in Bitcoin. Before you say something stupid like "bazillions of transfers for nuthin" you should realize what you need for that is a centralized service.

Simple fact: Imagine this person who JUST recently heard about bitcoin where its value is derived from people who buy it (currently $1,100), no banks, no government, no central entity involved. And its transferable ONLINE. Wow! Amazing!

But then it confirms in one to two days because of congestion.. And then he has to pay higher fees to get in front of a queue that will continually try to outbid one another. What do you think he'll do? Back to bank/ATM/creditcards/Paypal...

For those who actually use bitcoin on a regular basis, these will not do. If some central entity promises they will take care of your balance in any online crypto service for a smaller fee, that's a big demand already caused by the backlog. For example, Coinbase and Coinbase-connected businesses and services.

is cheaper fee related to security? since when? just related to miners being greedy to me

Highest fees will not make investor style people filthy rich as an automatism. Most if not all of them are totally neglecting that they aren't pool operators.
Users that are operating a just so tiniest amount of negligible hashrate tend to fall for a similar illusion. Dreaming of ROI, even.

But mass adopter's attention will be drawn away from even considering Bitcoin if they get a glance onto horrenduous costs for using it.
And we know Metcalfe's law and the network effects that give value to any digital currency. Most of the coins are lacking on that, never gaining any potential. Bitcoin has it as a first mover, but seems willing to risk it's foundations.

...

88,000 + now.  I have not checked to see what fees now have to be to get a confirmation in 1 - 2 blocks.

I read earlier in this thread that rising BTC price correlates with increasing activity and longer confirmation times.  Today's unconfirmeds would tend to be more evidence of just that.

I'll just take a break from BTC activity until the number of unconfirmeds comes down.

200 sat/B should get a conf in the first 1-2 blocks, this is about 0.00045 BTC for a small 225 byte tx.

still the same as before we still get the same problem, namely the queue waiting for confirmation of transactions like this https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions
I think it needs to prevent this problem not to happen again, my expectations bitcoin transactions really makes the other person is really convenient to use at least get a confirmation faster pace in the previous year

Situation won't change as long as the block size is still sitting at 1MB. I won't throw with names, but it's a consistent spam attack that most likely 1 person with deep pockets is running.

If we have let's say 2MB blocks, then this person will still be able to spam the network, but it would cost him much more money to reach the same level of effect.

For now I wouldn't focus too much on seeing this spam attack become less active as the person behind this attack can keep this up for quite a long time.

It's either patience that you need if you stick to relative low fees, or add a hefty fee to get your transaction confirmed within 2 blocks. There is not much more that you can do, really.

I'm really upset because of this. it continually happens, need to take any measures that solve it, if not, we need to change the technology platform, we need something quick and easy, and of course a cheaper fee. Current, Bitcoin is priced too high, so people use a smaller fee, this has slowed the transaction and makes it clogged, do not let this keep happening. they, the leaders blockchain need solutions

I often read the statement that many transactions are caused by a "spam attack", but I haven't seen any evidence for it.
Fees are now $2000 to $3500 per block. About $15,000 per hour, or more than $2 million per week. Even if only a fraction of this is caused by "spam", that would mean someone is spending millions of dollars on it. I find it hard to believe someone is making transactions just to spam the network.

You don't know much about the politics of money then.


The Central Banks in particular have a huge amount to gain from causing as much turmoil in the Bitcoin ecosystem as possible, and millions of $ is not much to the people who magic the actual money supply into existence

I know a thing or 2 about Central Banks. I see what you're going at, but I'd like to see some evidence showing Central Banks are buying Bitcoins just to make spam-transactions.
And even if it's true, wouldn't that be all the more reason to increase block size? Let them pump more fiat into Bitcoin for whatever agenda they have.

LoyceV, Lauda posted a long list of addresses a few days ago that are heavily contributing to the spam attack everyone seems to be suffering from.

If you thoroughly browse through all these addresses and look at how many nonsense transactions they are sending out, you'll probably understand that this is in fact a spam attack.

Thread ~ https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1776143.0

there's another thread saying these 'komodo' addresses have a legit purpose, it is not intentional spam.

could it be the obvious truth:  blocks have been nearing the 1 mb capacity for a long time
(just like Gavin warned) and now were seeing true network congestion more and more?

Could it just maybe be true?

Central Banks would only take such actions with the utmost secrecy, you'd find out only if they announced it.

Money has an enormous psychological component attached to it's value, if evidence emerged that Central Banks were mining or buying BTC to attack it, the fact that they felt so threatened by Bitcoin would affect the market's perception of the value of the fiat currencies issued by them. Precisely not what the fiat issuers want.

It is obvious that the more fees you pay the more quicker you transactions will get confirmed.
But I never experience this problem even though I just give the recommended fees .
And even though I give little less fees than recommend it takes max to max 3 to 4 hrs to confirm.
But as so many of you are complaining this problem might be real.
It's just because there might be lot of load on the server as many people keep making transactions with bitcoins.

You could check this article to get clear idea what the minimum fees are required to get the transactions included in next few blocks
http://coinour.com/index.php/how-to-predict-the-transaction-fees/
Current the minimum fee level is 20 satoshi per byte.

No. 20 sat/B will not confirm.

This became a problems for a couple of years, and up to now is gettingg more worst, especially more investors and users are more involving  themselves in this industry. I hope someone can give remedy on this sort of a problems.

Using Luckyb.it as the baseline it looks like it's (120k sat / kb)
Either way it is really slow although the chart has a good example of the estimated delay times (Green fast, Orange Not Fast but Slow, Red Snail)
https://bitcoinfees.21.co/

There would be no remedy since bitcoin cant be fixed or edit its system or how it works and we should expect that tx fee will surely increase when demand and transactions would rise in longer years. We cant avoid this thing and this would really be a problem.

At a certain point you just have to accept that this is the "new normal" and get on with life.

Would love to see stats regarding the amount of "bitcoin days destroyed" from this handfull of adresses. You know there isn't only the 20 sat/B number but coin's age is reviewed on sheduling priorities, too.

You can't spam the mempool by ping-pong-playing between the very same two adresses, over and over again. At least than your fees for getting a transfer done are higher. Spammers would have to rely on some old resource, burning through that instead of burning through their money supply.

Maybe one lever against this attack pattern could be tinkering on the sheduler heuristics regarding coin age.

We may have to accept that it is the new norm for a short period but these long wait times and 50k transactions in the mempool is not a good "norm" to have.

Uh, no.  It will only worsen.

The only way you could know that so confidently is if you were performing the spamming yourself. Is this what you're saying? If not, spare us the Nostradamus routine

I've just had a tx confirm in 5 blocks. The recommended priority fee from the service was 350 sat/B, but I was a little stingy and took a chance paying only 200 sat/B. This is ATH for weekend fees.

@ people who find them self having a unconfirmed transaction the following links can be very useful.
https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-count
This link is too see if the network is busy

http://neocashradio.com/blog/how-to-rebroadcast-a-transaction-on-blockchain-info/
This one is handy to rebroadcast your transaction.

Or you can try to accelerate it with viabtc.com/tools/txaccelerator/  this help me alot.

---

It is really frustrating to wait for your transaction for a very long time without the insurance of getting it confirmed on the next block.  With all these delays and fee hike, developer are busy pushing their own agenda instead of getting into agreement and adjust accordingly  giving way.  I just hope that there will be another group of capable developer that will appear and propose a better solution and fix all this problem.

'Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.' - Not this time.

---

The Bitcoin network is being attacked by spam again.
https://blockchain.info/address/3QQB6AWxaga6wTs6Xwq8FYppgrGinGu15f
31981 transactions.  ::)

Spam, or not, the network is fundamentally congested, and it continues to become more and more congested
as more people want to use the network which can only handle a few tx/sec.   I hope you are under no delusion about these basic facts.
 

In case that you want to ignore the basic fact that this is spam then. you are the one under delusion. I acknowledge the following:
1) Demand is about to or already has outweighed block space supply.
2) Some entity is heavily spamming the Bitcoin network for some malicious reason.

The reason for such spam could be:
1) To promote BU (politically motivated).
2) To raise fees (miners which are motivated by greed).
3) Other.

What's your proof that it's spam?  Even if a few addresses get a lot of
transactions, they may be conducting business or transacting for
any number of reasons.

Even if it is spam, the fact that they can so easily cripple the network
means capacity needs to grow. 

Sending tens of TXs in the same second, and a total of several thousands over a small period of time from yourself - to yourself. "Such business, very amaze, wow." ::) Give me a fucking break. If you can't see it is spam, you are delusional at best.

It is almost trivial to spam at any block size limit that the network could possibly operate with.

I see.  ok, then i guess it is spam.  Network is still congested though fundamentally as you can see from the avg blocksize chart.



if that is true, it makes me even more convinced there should not be any blocksize limit.

There is no denying this one. The case that I've presented is very clear and I've also listed potential reasons for it. My definition of spam is also much wider than yours. I'd say that badly implemented shitcoin functionalities such as Komodo Federation something are also spam.

Side-effect: You can mine absurdly large blocks and DOS everyone. Absurdly high orphan rates are just the cherry on top of the cake.

Proof positive that jonald and the BUcoiners stand behind a dev team coup that wish to encourage the blockchain to grow at the same pace as the spam, and become too large to download for a typical user.

They know full well that no blockchain in 2017 (or any time soon) will be able to handle the transaction demand they are positing, so as to "demonstrate" that decentralised cryptocurrency is flawed. Bitcoin will only fail due to centralisation if the balloon-chain bad actors get their hands on the keys to the codebase.

That is your theory. 

I would say that miners have no incentive to allow absurdly large blocks or to engage in behavior that promotes high orphan rates. 

That's the whole point of POW.  It makes attacking the network exponentially more difficult and expensive than sending a few
thousand transactions through.

Interesting.

All tx paying 0.0001btc fee,
All are straight into a block - no waiting, (are they even in the mempool numbers?)
All blocks found by bitfury.

Is that correct, already stated or relevant. (i did not check them all, but it seems to be so!)

---

(thought i saw a link to another thread about this, did i miss the link?)

---

Edit. from https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/
#20   Bitfury   (segwit) ready   mining pool   bitcoin core

There's a good chance they were lingering for a very long time before being mined by bitfury. Just because they're not seen elsewhere doesn't mean they were just sent that instant. Many nodes will simply not have had the transaction in their mempool but they could have even been sent a week ago. While most nodes tends to have the same high fee transactions in their mempool, when the network is busy the lower fee transactions visible on each node are wildly different.

There must be at least an equally good chance they were not lingering in the mempool.
This clearly needs further investigation.

Funny if they are all shown to be in bitfury blocks, unseen by other nodes. (queue jumping)
I haven't got time tonight, maybe you, or someone else will look properly?

No worries, it's all on the blockchain.

Definitely looking into it... I see other pools have mined transactions to the same address; only the ones that were mined on the same block coincided with the same pool (obviously.)

There is no theory. These are facts. You don't even understand why Bitcoin has the 'low' orphan rates today. You are also viewing this completely wrong. Let's assume all the miners are being honest (which is a very bad assumption). They have two options:
1) Produce much bigger, yet non-absurdly large blocks -> this solves nothing; spamming is a bit less trivial; mempool is still flooded with spam.
2) Produce absurdly large blocks to minimize mempool size -> high orphan risk, DoS.

A side effect of this is mining centralization as well. You are left with practically an 'ultimatum'; solve nothing & bloat the chain with bigger blocks or solve the problem but practically DoS everyone and risk with higher orphan rates.

Bitfury was recently testing out how to include the most number of transactions per block. Considering that these transactions aren't large in size, it is no surprise that they've been mining them.

Your case did seem very clear - BU was spaming the network for their own gains.
In the other thread you explain why this spam attack might be happening,


and here,


But now that i identified it is bitfury that is spaming, a core supporting pool not a BU pool, you say.


Like now all is fine and dandy, you just shrug this "spam" off as "testing" now?
I don't think bitfury needed to include 700 of these spam tx's (over 25% of block) in a single block to test how to fill a block.
https://blockchain.info/block/000000000000000000242e1d51b4143acc9058eba5fc9a325457577a639a7e12

These spam tx's are larger than median, around 380 bytes. It is clearly a bitfury address.
Tx's all created and included instantly, all in bitfury blocks.

This is a core attack, not BU


Oh really? i don't see any other pools mining tx's from this address.
But ok, if you have found those blocks i await your forthcoming evidence.

No, you have not done that. It is one thing to produce a transaction and it is a completely different thing to mine it.

It is still spam. You are obviously very misinformed about who is doing what in recent times.

Doubtful at best until I see proof of this. The average transaction size is well above the median FYI.

---

You've linked an interesting block though. It may be worth asking them via Twitter to see what's up.

 ???
When every tx is timestamped at the exact same time every block that carries those tx is mined, always by the same pool - bitfury- then we can conclude it is a bitfury address. You just said bitfury were "testing", now you think it is not their address?

 ???
How am i misinformed? You thought it was a BU attack not me.

 ???
I know the tx is well above median, i just told you that 'cos you previously said "these transactions aren't large in size"

You didn't understand anything from my post; stop jumping to conclusions. Bitfury was testing how to include the most number of transactions per block from the mempool. This does not include creating their own transactions which is counter-intuitive!

Wrong. I laid out some possible reasons behind the attack. I never said it was a "BU attack".

If the transactions are below the average TX size, then they aren't large in size. Sequitur.

Another example of nonsense from people with impaired knowledge. Any other altcoin faces the same problems if not worse (e.g. XMR, ETH scalability). P.S. Lisk is a shitcoin.

Ok, i should wait for ~ck to show his evidence that other pools were also including these tx's.
Will you tweet bitfury to ask about that block i linked, and all 31000 tx's in general.
I don't see why bitfury would have to include any of these tx's to test how to fill a block, when the mempool is at 10's of thousands.

You never said "it's a BU attack" but that was top reason on both lists. You were certainly implying that was what you thought and wanted others to see.

I'm not getting this response at all. Why do you keep telling me this? I know how big the tx's are!
It is me that keeps telling you that these tx's are bigger than median, or bigger than average. I even stated how big they are "around 380 bytes".

Just report that valueless shitposter above you and the mods may remove it.
2 posts and 2 minutes later nyanhtet rehashed his wisdom https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1550041.msg18072136#msg18072136
"Bitcoin inverted to replace fiat money, if no one use, will replace by another one."
Or maybe he will be the next shitposter promoted?

Sure.

I would if I had social media. That's why I asked you to do it. Well, anyone reading this please tweet Alex. https://twitter.com/sysmannet

Likewise, but this would fit their 'testing the inclusion of high number of TXs' per block. At this size they can include at least 2.5k TXs.

No. The list is not sorted based on probability, i.e. the numbering doesn't represent anything. It is just a list of potential causes without any particular order.

Median TX size < these TXs < average TX size (~500 bytes). See here: https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin/historical/1w-f-tsize_per_avg-11101

We both know that is not likely going to happen. It is more likely that he will become the next staff member. ::)

Just go to a page of transactions to the same address at an earlier time since ALL those transactions are from the same block you're looking at. eg.
https://blockchain.info/tx/cbc7997a133b606c77831b6898ad05b256e9329f3cb553355d2b544e689e4e83
Mined by BTCC

Ok thanks, i need to modify my statement.

This addy is first used in dec 16, but not much. Out of 31000 tx's from this addy, only 500 were sent before the 19/2/17.
(your linked tx was from 18/2/17)

These early tx's were mined a few at a time by many different pools, but also included a good fee - usually 0.0003 (77 sat/byte)
1 block mined by BTC.com (454214) had fees as high as 0.00065 (168 sat/byte)
Hard to call 0.0003 fee spam, let alone 0.00065. Of course these will be confirmed by any miner.
But an attack of that nature would be very expensive for the attacker on any kind of significant scale.

Then, for the other 30500 tx's from 19/2/17 till now, the fee drops to 0.0001 (25 sat/byte) leaving only bitfury mining these tx's at this fee.
And confirming hundreds at a time, see this block from 25/2/17 as another example https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000000022a0a477bb26f65793d501d7e5721715e7ad301a2e2bc5b
Bitfury must be confirming 2000 of these "spam" tx's per day on average.

So yes, the first few hundred tx's paid good fees and were mined by many pools, a few tx's at a time,
the other 30500 tx's seem to be exclusively mined by bitfury, for a much smaller fee.

-------

Lauda, i don't tweet either.
btw - as if by magic the shitpost was gone!

Couldn't this be a failing piece of software stuck in a loop?

If that person is willing to pay for it, the network should just be able to handle it. Email spam makes up 97% of the 200 billion emails (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_spam#Statistics_and_estimates) sent each day. The email system was adjusted in such a way that it can handle it, instead of making people wait longer to send an email.

No matter what the reason is, spam won't go away, which means the network should be able to handle it without interrupting normal usage.

If a miner is willing to risk 12.5 BTC by making an absurdly large block, that's an expensive gamble.

That would fall under the list of reasons called 'other'. Yes that is a possibility.

That statement is complete nonsense. In no way will Bitcoin be able to sustain the amount of spam that it can be thrown at it.

DDoS can take down centralized systems which are highly efficient in comparison. How do you expect a decentralized system to resist its own DoS?

See my last assertion. Either you mine absurdly large blocks to process the transactions or you are left with a overflowing mempool. Big blocks solve nothing.

As I mentioned, I don't agree with your conclusions, but please tell us:

In your vision of how the network should scale, how would it be ddos/spam resistant?  And if miners aren't going to be ones enforcing good policies (i.e. BU) , who will?

It doesn't matter even if you don't agree that the Earth is a planet TBH.

If I had the perfect answer to that question, we wouldn't be in this situation, would we now?

Giving more power to miners is one of the absurdest ideas that I've heard in a long time. Miners are incentivized by self-greed, not the greater good. This isn't socialism. ::)

---

Here's an older article on your idea of no block size limit: https://medium.com/@bergealex4/bitcoin-is-unstable-without-the-block-size-size-limit-70db07070a54#.h8qns8clk

51% of mining power already has defacto control of the network.  As long as honest nodes
control a majority of hashing power, the network will function well,
whether we are talking about avoiding empty blocks, avoiding super large blocks, or whatever.

Therefore, BU doesn't actually "give miners more power", it just facilitates consensus.

BU facilitates breaking consensus, not enforcing it. That's the whole point of BU.

No-one will be able to trust the validity of on-chain transactions, as BU can fork or reorg itself unexpectedly at any time. The ability to alter the consensus rules on the fly turns forks and re-orgs into a feature, when they're highly undesirable for a stable uniform blockchain.

Wrong that is not 'control'. They can attempt to attack the network, after which they would get 'fired' with a algorithm change.

BU breaks consensus and attempts to change the security model into something that isn't even adequately tested.

Indeed.

Your point about consensus depends on one's point-of-view.

To quote BU:

We believe that the block size is NOT part of blockchain consensus...
By moving the blocksize limit from the protocol layer to the transport layer,
Bitcoin Unlimited removes the only point of central control in the Bitcoin economy -
the blocksize limit - and returns it to the nodes and the miners.

You are certainly correct that it is not tested. 

I suppose that supporters of BU like myself feel that the
risk is small compared with the damage that is likely to
come by allowing the current impasse and stagnation to continue, and/or allowing core to continue its governance.

If a spammer is willing to pay $1000+ per hour on fees, that should be enough to create a network that can withstand it. I don't see any other way to stop the spam.

This makes sense. It's the first time I read about this as a reason not to go for BU.

Then they're out of their tiny little minds.

From the Bitcoin source code, consensus.h: (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/consensus/consensus.h)

No.

What "you" believe has zero relevance. The block size was always part of the consensus rules else they'd not need a HF to change.

There we have it: BU is not even tested.

That amount of money is trivial for a fair number of people. You are talking beyond decentralized networking capabilities. There are limits to all of this you know?

Me?  No that is a quote from bitcoinunlimited.info (http://bitcoinunlimited.info).

Obviously the limit is in the codebase, and we think removing it is a good idea.
So from our point of view, this facilitates consensus, not breaks it.

Perhaps you still haven't gained the ability to discern facts from opinions.

And your quote from bitcoinunlimited.info contradicts that very basic fact.

50 megabytes of mempool constantly since a week on my full node. I think that the only decent way to trim well this huge amount of unconfirmed transactions will be to raise the minimum relay fee to 0.0001 BTC per kB