Bitcoin Forum

Hi All !

Yesterday some of my transactions took 3 hours to complete. One of them is stuck for an entire day ! (and still incomplete)
Analyzing why, it seems to be due to block size limit of 1 MB, that is getting full.

Here is the transaction that stuck for an entire day (24 hours).
https://blockchain.info/tx/fa7a3e35921fbdf6090f11c2fa58a93627ad65f37bd6d7fd50796e42316efebc

What do you think of it ?
If indeed block size limit is to blame then I call for an immediate upgrade our block size. (or else The Bitcoin Network may become worthless).

-Technologov

Things aren't going to change anytime soon, store your coins for long time in hopes they increase in value and it becomes reliable to spend them in the future or use some other coin.

When you want to send Bitcoin, pay a high enough transaction fee and you won't have any issues. Use a wallet that has dynamic fees so it will always calculate the best transaction fee for your transaction to confirm quickly based upon the state of the network.

As for a block size increase, there is a lot of technical nuances that have to go into making one happen. There are currently two proposals out there that have been implemented: Segwit and Bitcoin Unlimited. Nearly all people who can be considered "Bitcoin experts" (aka developers) agree that Segwit is the way to go and that BU is flawed and has issues. Unfortunately activation of segwit depends on enough miners signalling support, and right now that is not happening. Miners right now are tending to not signal any support for any of the proposals.

Are you sure about this?

How many developers and "experts" think that Bitcoin Unlimited is a good idea?  How many don't?

Are you presenting a bias based on your preference, or is this statement of "Nearly all" backed up by actual numbers?

Launch both segwit and bu.   

I was this angry not long ago, when it costed me some 3$ o transfer quickly some Bitcoin.
But you have paid 0.3$. If you would have paid 0.5$ none of this would have happened to you.

Right now people can tell that the mined blocks already pay the miners good enough. I am curious what is going to happen when the block reward will be 0.
Luckily that will happen only in some more years...

Paying more doesn't solve anything. Under a free market economy paying more (higher demand) leads to more supply. In Bitcoin world, supply (network capacity) stays the same.

Without increasing block size, Bitcoin network is doomed (which will force me to alt-coins). Because 3 hour Bitcoin transactions are a non-option.

Wrong, if bitcoins stays the same it will turn into a richman's club where having 1000 bitcoins would be a royalty, it also increase the price and filters the herds keeping poor and uneducated users out and let them swarm in those altcoins of yours and keeps the nerds, experts, genuine users in to the business, it'll become a very specialized cryptocurrency.

---

On the other hand I want to know that if it is possible to double the block size limit right now and same time change the source code to make mining 2MB blocks cost and require the same computational power in a way that doesn't invalidate the previous blocks on the chain or even an implementation to consolidate every 2 old blocks into 1 new block version like nodes needing to reindex the whole blockchain, but keeps the current mining machines functioning as before without the need for people to buy new hardware.
I know doing that requires a lot of effort and is time consuming but if you are a skillful coder capable of doing that and you want bitcoin to thrive and be strong in the future then you already have your incentive, either you all just talk or actually care to do something.

Not always. If the supply is inelastic, then the higher cost leads to lower demand.  Eventually an equilibrium is reached where the demand that is willing to pay the cost is approximately equal to the supply that is available.  Those that aren't willing to pay that cost simply stop creating any demand.


Correct.  Without a protocol change, the supply is inelastic.  There are efforts to create an elastic supply (such as Bitcoin Unlimited), but there isn't enough demand for those changes yet for them to be implemented.

In the meantime, the demand and cost are elastic and will adjust to match the current supply.  Perhaps the bitcoin blockchain will only be useful for those that are moving thousands of dollars worth of bitcoin and are therefore willing to pay tens of dollars in transaction fees?
 

3 hours for confirmations aren't necessary as long as you are willing to pay a high enough transaction fee.  Bitcoin isn't "doomed".  It will just become an expensive luxury, and will only be available to the elite that are willing to pay a significant transaction fee for the privilege.

I invite you to do your own research instead of asking for someone to spoonfeed you the information for a position which you are against. Nearly everyone that can be considered a Bitcoin expert (i.e. wallet developers, developers of full node software, etc.) has given statements regarding their position with Segwit, Classic, and BU. They have either done so explicitly (in interviews, on forums, on Twitter, etc.) or through their support of Segwit functionality in their software. You will find that the majority of these people are in favor of segwit.

Use a wallet like newest Electrum and enable dynamic fees, set slider to high. Alternative is to pay .0005 fee for every transaction if your wallet does not support dynamic fees. Using Electrum with fee set to high I have never had to wait more than an hour or two for a transaction to confirm or paid an unreasonably high fee.

I certainly can.  And I probably will.

I just get tired of people making generic claims like "Nearly all people" without supporting that claim.

I could just as easily claim in posts that "Nearly all people that really understand the importance of creating a dynamic way to scale bitcoin in the future agree that Bitcoin Unlimited is the way to go.  Then when anyone asks me about it, I could just tell them to "do their own research instead of asking for someone to spoonfeed them the information".

If someone did this I'd call them out on it too, because defining "Bitcoin Experts" or "people that really understand the importance of creating a dynamic way to scale bitcoin" is very subjective.  I generally prefer not to, and try not to, use an Argument From Authority to influence and lead people in any specific direction.  Unfortunately, since I'm not willing to pressure people into backing SegWit, many SegWit supporters think I'm against SegWit.  Since I'm not willing to pressure people into backing Unlimited, many Unlimited supporters think I'm against Unlimited.

In reality, I'm just FOR people having as many facts and as much knowledge as possible so they can make intelligent decisions on their own (rather than blindly following what some self-claimed "authority" says on either side).

Well the fact is Danny, the "solution" you're oh-so subtly selling is little thin on game theory.

User selectable blocksize just moves the shouting match directly to the consensus rules, and of course, who shouts loudest wins. No amount of goodwill platitudes can wish that away, so you're going to have to admit you're selling yet another 2nd hand used-Bitcoin eventually

And that's without forgetting that even without the BU blocksize getting set to "datacenter" by bad actors, a majority of BU users aren't going to even set the mysterious "block limit" setting, much less the "Depth" setting, and so BU developers de facto choose it's blocksize anyway, as they choose the default

You totally missed the point, as usual, again.
I would trust Danny over you anyday, even though he blanks me.

Not that i need to trust Danny, that is completely not what he asking for here.
" I'm just FOR people having as many facts and as much knowledge as possible so they can make intelligent decisions on their own (rather than blindly following what some self-claimed "authority" says on either side)."

That is where Carltons problem is. He's a blind follower, and wants us to be too.
I wont be replying to you endless crap banks. (but fair enough for you to give a response)

This is the largest number of unconfirmed transactions in the history of Bitcoin.

https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-count

I want to ask one thing. What is really causing this? I know that there is no sudden increase in Bitcoin users large enough to cause this. There are some Legendary members here that imply there is someone who is spamming the network and they are pointing to some people who were involved with Bitcoin from the very beginning. Are they only rumors or true?

Even a small shortage of super-important asset can cause a huge-mega-spike in prices.

For example around 1975, during oil price shock, the actual shortage of oil according to various rumors were only 3%, yet the price spike was 20x times (2000%). Why ?
Because oil is a super-important item everyone needs. So is water, and Bitcoin transactions.

Even a 5% shortage in block size vs natural demand and user growth, accumulated for several days will cause a huge mega spike in transaction fees (and mega-massive delays for those users, whom set standard fees)

Not really.


My point is that Danny is inherently untrustworthy, because he is pretending that user selected blocksize isn't a massive, gaping attack vector. It's impossible that Danny is that stupid, therefore he's a liar.


And Danny's bumptious tactics are sociopathy 101; he behaves as if the unsolvable flaws in BU's approach are beneath his dignity to discuss. Danny will presumably be ignoring this "little people" conversation when the BU blocksize gets pushed up to the max only weeks after it forks

That is a compelling argument. So what are you saying? This constant barrage of spamming in the network is being caused by someone who has a profit motive instead of a political motive?

The spammer does spend a lot in fees by slowing down the transaction confirmations. Maybe it could be true but who would be doing this? He or they are risking so much here.

Just a thought, I may be awfully wrong, but still:
What if there is a spam, made by some bigger miners? Meaning OK, they will pay quite some money for the tx fees, but a big chunk of that money returns to them when they find the blocks.
And they get quite some extra from the other users of the network, I don't know if it's some profit or just cover the expenses (since there are other miners too, which cash in those fees).
And then they can argue about block size or other such politics....
As I said, it's just a thought, please don't throw stones on me...

Spamming the network doesnt make any sense (imo).
The costs are too high.. (even if you self mine the block).. You cant mine every block..
Spamming Blockchaintechnology is never efficient.

yet here we are trying to explain blockchain spam.

Rationally, you have to start questioning your assumptions.

Assumption 1: Spamming is actually occurring.
Assumption 2: Spamming is irrational, spammers can only lose money (in some way).

These 2 assumptions can only both be true if and only if the spammer is acting irrationally.

So either
A: 1 is wrong and there is no spamming and its all legitimate.  It just looks like spam.
B: 2 is wrong, and somehow spamming is profiting the spammer (in some way).
C: The spammer is acting irrationally to the detriment of everyone, including himself.

If there was a profit angle found by the miners by spamming the network then they will surely take advantage of this. Not do they only get profit but they also get the leverage on the Core developers because they could threaten to to flood the mem pool anytime. We need another layer on top of Bitcoin for transactions off the chain. That might neutralize that leverage.

I think you are misrepresenting the position of wallet (softare) devs, (and the position of exchanges/businesses). The reason that wallet software is supporting segwit is because the devs believe there is a decent chance it will be implemented, and if segwit is not supported, then users of their wallet software will be unable to validate segwit transactions (what could be the majority of transactions). The same is true regarding exchanges, if an exchange is not ready to implement segwit, then once segwit is activated, they will have no way to validate they have actually received deposits, which is just asking for a disaster.

Although not directly related to SegWit, this (https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinscaling/comments/5u0reg/i_asked_multiple_exchanges_if_they_would_allow/) reddit post is a better indication of the experts who are running major Bitcoin related businesses' opinions. Provided that you trust that the author of that post is not lying (I am unsure of his ability to be trusted one way or another, although I have not seen any contradictions to what he has said), then the majority of Bitcoin related businesses are neutral to the issue, and do not support one side or another.

I would also point out that major businesses were threatened with bans on r/bitcoin after they publicly showed support for XT (and baseless ad-hominem attacks were thrown at the same businesses after they showed support for XT), so there is a legitimate business reason to withhold public opposition to SegWit (and public support for BU) if that is the business' actual position. There is no such business reason to withhold public support for SegWit when the business' actual position is that they support SegWit.

Isn't litecoin was made exactly for this situation? To process microtransactions when bitcoin can't? Increasing in block size still won't resolve problem, even with bigger block the network  will be full of unconfirmed transactions  in a week. Too many people  use bitcoin today, single blockchain can't handle this.

OKCoin, BitFinex,Gemini ,BitFinex,BTCC, Kraken, Bitstamp, Bittrex, Coinfloor , Btc-e , QuadrigaCX, itBit , bitMex= We don't have an opinion because we either don't want to upset a subset of our users and/or we don't understand the proposals enough


Coinbase , Coinfloor= segwit

Btcpop = BU

Owners of BTCC and BitFinex have expressed segwit support elsewhere.

Exchanges make money of tx fees and will benefit greatly in the short term from Bitcoin splitting in 2 and a trading war begins so aren't the best businesses to ask regarding their opinion.  The experts achow101 refers to anyways are devs not exchange owners anyways.


This isn't true. Supporters of segwit are viciously attacked all the time.

Well said, and miners can both sybil attack the blocksize vote while stuffing blocks with spam (for free as they collect the tx fees) to mislead the community into believing more capacity is needed, rinse and repeat.

If you don't understand how bitcoin works, then your opinion on the matter isn't very important.

If miners (or pools) refuse to include fee paying transactions and replace those transactions in the block with their own transactions it is not free.  It costs the miner (or pool) in at least 3 ways.

1. They still have to run the equipment to perform the mining. This has a cost associated with it, and they need enough revenue to keep it going.  The more revenue their competitors get, the more hashing power their competitors can afford which increases the profitability of their competitors and increases the mining difficulty.  Eventually the attacking miner (or pool) is operating at a loss.  When they lose enough money, they can't afford to continue to run and have to shut down.

2.  They lose out on the transaction fees from the transactions they refused to include.  This is lost revenue, and other miners or pools that choose to include those transactions will be able to afford more hash power, thereby making the attacking pool less relevant.

3. If their block gets orphaned, then all those "spam" transactions can be confirmed by some other miner or pool.  As such, they can pay a very hefty fee for playing such a game and taking such a risk.  Eventually this additional revenue for the "honest" miners and pools will allow them to afford more hash power, thereby making the attacking pool less relevant.

The only way miners could be successful in such an "attack" would be if there was a cartel of miners (or pools) that controlled significantly more than 50% of the hash power.  They could then all agree to exclude low-fee paying transactions and avoid mining each other's "spam".  If this occurs, then bitcoin is already a failure.  It won't matter if we have SegWit, Unlimited, Classix, XT, or something else.  Satoshi explained in the whitepaper, and it is clear to everyone that understands how bitcoin works that if an entity controls significantly more than 50% of the hashpower, they can take full control over which transactions get confirmed and which don't.  They can also roll back blocks several deep if they like.

Thank you for your notes on the matter.


Mining is already extremely centralized and there is evidence that one company could already control over 50% of the hashrate directly or indirectly. There are profits to be made in raising the blocksize from this principle miner or a cartel of miners who wish to shutdown competitors elsewhere while they can further centralize mining in a single location like this where they aren't concerned as much with orphaning blocks due to increased latency:

http://www.datacenterdynamics.com/content-tracks/power-cooling/bitmain-to-build-a-large-cryptocurrency-mine-in-xinjiang/97265.fullarticle


This miner, Cough...Bitmain... cough, would still be extremely profitable because most of the block would be filled with others tx fees and they would simply top it off occasionally when they wanted increase the blocksize. THis would actually likely increase their profit margins as the txs sitting in the mempool would than compete in a fee market which would drive up tx fees.


I would disagree , they would be encouraged to continue down the path we are already witnessing- centralizing mining further to reduce orphan risk by placing most mining under one roof - https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitmain-reveals-plans-for-major-bitcoin-mining-data-center-in-northwestern-china-1478797051/  , collecting rent fees from other miners who wish to be hosted in this facility, pretending that mining is becoming more decentralized by creating contracts with "other" companies , advocating for blocksize increases to onboard more txs and collect more fees while preventing competition from remaining profitable.


Miners order txs and users validate them. Miners work for economic users. The current Miners are ultimately powerless to the will of these users and bitcoin will carry on with or without them.

You are misrepresenting their statements. Their statements are that they are neutral on the matter. Period.

If you seriously believe that coinbase actually supports SegWit, then you are naive. Coinbase was attacked for months (if not longer) with baseless accusations (such as being hacked, insolvent, lying about reserves, ect.) on r/bitcoin after publicly supporting larger blocksize proposals, which promptly stopped when coinbase stopped being vocal about larger block proposals. 

This is another misrepresentation. Executives of BTCC and Bitfinex are supporters of small blocks, who also are shareholders of their respective companies, however the companies themselves have taken the above stances.

I am a shareholder of an exchange, and I support large blocks, however it would be a misrepresentation to say that the owner of said exchange supports large blocks.
Again, you are wrong here. Exhanges pay a lot of money in tx fees as they generally do not charge their customers to deposit or withdraw, however they are incurring costs to receive many deposits (that need to be moved to cold and/or 'warm' storage), and to process all withdrawals.

If you do not think that exchanges employ any kind of experts then you are sorely mistaken. The experts employed by the exchanges may not be public figures, nor do they command the kind of salary that blockstream pays, however without their services, exchanges would be exploited on a regular basis.

This does not match what I have observed. Can you point to attacks against Coinbase and BTCC, both of which you cite to be a SegWit supporter, on r/bitcoin?

So you are suggesting Brian is lying because he was peer pressured or bullied instead of realizing that segwit is the best step forward after more reflection? I don't know his mind and won't entertain conspiracy theories , but him and others in his company like Charlie Lee have come out in support of segwit.



Please cite their experts direct opinion than.


Are you kidding me ? Samson Mow wasn't continually attacked for segwit support? Yes, attacking the former CTO is indeed an attack on the company itself.