Bitcoin Forum

There used to be some room for high priorities transactions, which even don't pay fees and will be confimed in the blocks with other paying transactions. In the mean time miners seems to only include the higher fee one in the blocks and ingore the high priority ones. What do you think about it? After the block is increased, will this function be activated again?

maybe there are no more transaction with an idle status so long that they can be considered high priority?

by digging around seems that the reaosn is that the 50kb reserved in each block for these transaction is now set to zero after 0.12 version

As to me, just setting higher priority makes no particular sense

Besides, as far as I know, priority depends on how long a transaction hasn't been confirmed, and that might make some sense after all. Other than that, the only genuine measure that could objectively set the initial priority is the size of the fee itself. Really, if you want to prioritize your transaction and make miners actually pay attention to your needs, you prioritize it by making it more valuable for them to include it faster in the next block. In other words, you should put your money where your mouth is

Well seems like these days the real "high priority blocks" are the ones the pools use to pay their miners

This function is still active! But why would a miner pick someone who's sending a million dollars without a fee, if he can pick someone who's sending 5 bucks with 1 dollar fee? Of course the miner picks the transaction that earns him a dollar over the one that earns him nothing.
For the future when blocks might get bigger: Bitcoin Core 0.14 will deactivate this priority mechanism. (I only read this recently, I can't find back the source, so don't hang me on it)

0.14 makes removes some parts of age-based priority from the code, 0.15 will remove all of it. 0.15 will be out sometime summer 2017.

Priority for sender and receiver but not for miners, only priority for miners is a transaction with the highest fee, time where miners gasped for some txs to include and those faucet big transactions were considered a fat bonus has past and are now a history.

The miners can choose to include transactions based on whatever metric they want. Alternatively they can also choose to not include any transactions.

IIRC almost nobody uses it nowadays anyways.

Wrong.

Touché!

That's the "whatever metric they want" which seemingly isn't located inside the sphere of "public interest" which includes everyone of us.

I think miners should include transactions according to the same consensus rule. Afterall, nodes validate their blocks on consensus, and people need to know that any transaction they send fits a consensus otherwise we will never know if a transaction will confirm because it might not match the miners configuration.

It is the same in any field of human activity

People are doing something (or just anything) not because of some obscure "public interest" but rather out of their own private interests (thiugh that's normal). And miners are not an exception to this rule anyway (but this alone doesn't make them less evil, of course). Mining starts to serve public interests when competition kicks in so that miners can't raise their fees infinitely. But since competition in this field is close to being extinguished, we see all the ugly effects of a market which has been heavily monopolized

I think we should bring back the priority feature back to bitcoin once again. maybe we can even fight the spam transactions with this (to some extent not completely). franky1 had some comment about this.
but in the end it is up to the miners to implement this or not. and since miners are looking for more money I think even if block size was increased and it was empty they wouldn't prioritize low fee transactions as right now F2pool mines empty blocks if mempool is empty and there are high priority low fee transactions in it.

Higher priority transactions are now useless and there is no room for that anymore. The ony thing that matters now are the higher fees that you set on your transaction so you can have a fast confirmation. Without a higher fee that is set  your transaction will not be prioritized. The only VIP in the network are those who have the capacity to pay a higher miner fee.

a new priority fee formulae doesnt have to mean zero fee's for everyone.

but the old fee formulae was more about calculating the value of the tx against the bytes. which if 'rich' enough you can counter the bytes and get priority. so ended up being a rich vs poor (in favour of the rich)

a new priority could be about not value.. but age, bytes and using the CLTV mechanism for people to voluntarily 'lock-in maturity' of up to 24 hours to say that if people are willing to spend less often they pay less.. if their tx's are leaner they pay less.
but if you bloat a tx and want to spend it every block it gets extremely expensive

where by those wanting to spend more often than 24 hours on a regular basis would then find it voluntarily beneficial to use second layer niche services (LN)

below is an example, although not perfect shows how bloat and respending to soon can be 'punishable' and being lean and displaying desire not to spam can be rewarding

Interesting do you have know where to find the update log for that the last I recall it was coinage that determined the priority of lower fee transactions.
Simply put older it was the less the txt
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_fees#Historic_rules_for_free_transactions

(Edit in:) Looked at the 0.1.2 log see where this was introduced

Bitcoin Core has a heuristic 'priority' based on coin value and age. This calculation is used for relaying of transactions which do not pay the minimum relay fee, and can be used as an alternative way of sorting transactions for mined blocks. Bitcoin Core will relay transactions with insufficient fees depending on the setting of -limitfreerelay=<r> (default: r=15 kB per minute) and -blockprioritysize=<s>.

 In Bitcoin Core 0.12, when mempool limit has been reached a higher minimum relay fee takes effect to limit memory usage. Transactions which do not meet this higher effective minimum relay fee will not be relayed or mined even if they rank highly according to the priority heuristic.

Seems like a bad adjustment in my opinion as it favors miners and fee gathering but does not account for people who rarely use the network to send and are not a big part of the bloat issue.

This is a quote from bitcoin.org

Now please bare with me and educate me on this particular matter, if mining isn't just including transactions in blocks then what is mining and why can't miners always mine empty blocks as what is stopping them?

You say I'm wrong but can you share any secret where we can convince miners to include our low fees transactions over the already available offers of users with paying higher fees? I meant priority for sender and receiver since when not having a fast confirmation isn't a priority? I wasn't talking about the priority of oldest coins back in the blockchain(days past-burning concept-determining whether someone is moving their own coins back and forth or coins are actually circulating).

Correct. Whoever assumes that all miners are genuine or working towards the common good is confusing Bitcoin with socialism.

They lose out additional money, i.e. fees per  block. There are heavy debates on how much extra propagation time and risk adding TXs to a block includes than just mining an empty one. With empty blocks it is less likely that you're going to lose the 'race' to someone else.

That is it: You can't. The miners can't be forced by others to do what they like.

There is a limit to all of this. They can only prioritize so much. I'm assuming that some miners already have *private* offerings for "premium seats" in their blocks.

WRONG

i would do a lauda and not explain why..
but lets not be lauda.

miner CAN be forced.
add a new rule to node consensus of validating blocks..
EG
blocks need atleast 1500tx included or get rejected

And this requires a fork, which needs support from miners, ergo you can't force them to do anything. ::)

If a majority of bitcoin users agree on a hardfork, miners will be left mining useless coin or move to mining the fork.  ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???javascript:void(0);

lol
NODE CONSENSUS
learn it..
its been many since i started asking you to learn about bitcoin. please take less time trolling as if you know, and more time actually learning to actually know. then you may find yourself able to help the community more. rather than just crying "wrong"

if nodes get consensus pools block attempts end up getting rejected by not following the rules and miss out on their rewards and just wasting their own time doing empty blocks because the 20second-2minute advantage of doing empty blocks becomes useless because their blocks get rejected anyway with such an example nod consensus rule.

remember
nodes= bosses
pools=secretary
devs=workers

we already know YOU think devs=boss and devs give power to pools. but thats not how bitcoin works or should work. which is why the soft fork is undecided

I call bullshit on this. Good luck gaining majority of node consensus on such an useless suggestion like that. Oh right, you can't. The same way you can't force miners to do anything. ::)

There you go again, with your false analogies and stupid conspiracy theories.

He's losing his shit

Just about every franky/jonald/jbreher post these days reads:

"No! You don't understand Bitcoin! It works like " <long boring description of how BU works>



In your dreams, dickheads

Sorry to disagree with you here. If there are not 1500tx's in the mempool, there is no point rejecting the block.

But I do think miners should include transactions based on consensus, not how they can now pick and choose. No more damaging transaction accelerators please.

it was an example of NODES setting the rules.. (thats how bitcoin works. its called consensus)
dont get picky about the exact number in a random example , just understand the concept and context of the methodology

That's ok.

The miner can just create 1500 transactions that pay from themselves to themselves.  That way they can meet the requirements of having enough transactions to be a "valid" block without needing to include any transactions that they don't want to include.  Sure, it will bloat the blockchain (and probably the UTXO as well), but at least the new rule won't keep them from building blocks.

 ;D

Lol, do you run a mining node?

No, but I've got a pretty good understanding of how the consensus rules and the incentive structure of bitcoin operate.

Blockchain transaction become rather expensive cost compare to bank service right now, don't know about MoneyGram.
My last transaction fee was $1.4 and after 10 hours it still not confirmed yet, wth. Higher fee but slow confirmation, I think it maybe related to my wallet as my friend transaction costs low fee than mine but confirmed in minutes. Higher fee doesn't mean become a priorities transaction, in my case.

I run a mining node. I've got a U2+ running 2 GH/s against the network. Might as well buy a lottery ticket. But if UASF is implemented, do I get two votes?

Yes.  At 2GH/s a lottery ticket has ALL of the following benefits:

• Is cheaper
• Has a better chance of "winning"
• Pays more if it does win

If it results in a "contentious fork" and there are two bitcoin blockchains, then you can split your hash power and participate on both networks if you want.

Electricity is expensive here.
The chance of winning is low.
The potential winnings are high, if the block is not orphaned because I lose the SPV race.

I look forward to cutting my U2 in half. Should put buying asics in the bitcoin newbies mistake forum. Even at zero electricity rates, the difficulty rises faster than old recycled chips sold as new.

Does UASF need hash power? I thought it was just running a node, which may or may not have an informed individual that runs it.

Which is why I said that the lottery ticket is cheaper.  Also, the lottery ticket is cheaper than the hardware you are using.


Which is why I said that the lottery ticket has a better chance of "winning"  Depending on the lottery near you, the odds of winning the jackpot are anywhere from 10X to 10,000X more likely than you solving a block solo mining.


If you get a block to yourself, the winnings are 12.5 bitcoins.  Here in the US that would be about $16,000
Most lottery jackpots are much higher than that.

So, like I said...
A lottery ticket has ALL of the following benefits:

• Is cheaper
• Has a better chance of "winning"
• Pays more if it does win

That's one way to manage it.  A better way might be to split the time you spend mining on each fork.  10 minutes on one fork, then 10 minutes on the other.


Yes.  Unless you have access to very cheap resources (electricity, hardware, cooling, space) mining is generally not profitable.


UASF (User Activated Soft Fork) is just concept for "activating" a soft fork.  After the fork hash power will still be needed on whichever fork survives.

If it works as intended, then everyone will switch to the new software to avoid being left behind on the "activation date".
Another possibility is that nobody switches to the new software because nobody actually believes that the majority of the hashpower will switch (in which case the new fork never happens).

The most entertaining possibility is that approximately half of the network (and approximately half the hash power) switches to the new software before the activation date. Then the blockchain forks and you get to hash on both sides.

This is most often happen in the blockchain where the high fee of charges is priority of transaction in the blockchain. and because of this matter there are more unconfirmed transaction are getting stock while waiting in the confirmation. Isn't its getting unfair to anybody if there is a rules like this.