Bitcoin Forum

Bitcoin => Bitcoin Discussion => Topic started by: Cryptology on January 20, 2016, 03:05:30 PM



Title: Blocks are full.
Post by: Cryptology on January 20, 2016, 03:05:30 PM
Right now Bitcoin's price is rallying and block are full. According to blockchain.info backlog of unconfirmed transactions is 11.6 MB right now and as far as I know there is now spam or stress test going on. How worse does it need to get?


Title: Re: Blocks are full.
Post by: watashi-kokoto on January 20, 2016, 03:09:04 PM
Right now Bitcoin's price is rallying and block are full. According to blockchain.info backlog of unconfirmed transactions is 11.6 MB right now and as far as I know there is now spam or stress test going on. How worse does it need to get?

Well, we were expecting thermonuclear war, so this seems pretty good so far.


Title: Re: Blocks are full.
Post by: partysaurus on January 20, 2016, 03:12:42 PM
Right now Bitcoin's price is rallying and block are full. According to blockchain.info backlog of unconfirmed transactions is 11.6 MB right now and as far as I know there is now spam or stress test going on. How worse does it need to get?


i have not been into all this bitcoin stuff for so long , but from all i read so far , i cant realy see why so much people are hating on bigger block sizes. Becuse all i can see and hear right now is that bitcoins would benfit from it a great deal.


Title: Re: Blocks are full.
Post by: watashi-kokoto on January 20, 2016, 03:17:25 PM

i have not been into all this bitcoin stuff for so long , but from all i read so far , i cant realy see why so much people are hating on bigger block sizes. Becuse all i can see and hear right now is that bitcoins would benfit from it a great deal.

Write a letter to the Bitcoin headquarters tech support, and ask them to raise the block limit to 4MB.

Satoshi Nakamoto
Bitcoin Classic
Rue du simplon 4
Martigny 1920
Switzerland


Title: Re: Blocks are full.
Post by: bitcoin carpenter on January 20, 2016, 03:20:48 PM
It is frustrating how much energy is being wasted.  Just scale the blocksize  already...


Title: Re: Blocks are full.
Post by: Cryptology on January 20, 2016, 03:26:00 PM
I guess that we need to see frequent backlogs in 30 - 60 MB range for things to start changing.


Title: Re: Blocks are full.
Post by: Kprawn on January 20, 2016, 03:30:46 PM
We staying below the 1400 transactions per block and with the stress tests, we experienced 1483 and 1711 respectively, so we getting close to a average of 1400 transactions per

block, as a average. The thing that worries me, is the decline in the estimated transaction volumes. The only people smiling seems to be the miners, because the miners revenue is

averaging above 1 750 000 US.  ::) ..... Makes you wonder, why we seeing these high revenue, when transaction volumes are declining.


Title: Re: Blocks are full.
Post by: Jet Cash on January 20, 2016, 03:32:13 PM
Don't worry Obama is re-commissioning some redundant missiles to deliver blocks next month. :)


Title: Re: Blocks are full.
Post by: Karartma1 on January 20, 2016, 03:32:24 PM
Right now Bitcoin's price is rallying and block are full. According to blockchain.info backlog of unconfirmed transactions is 11.6 MB right now and as far as I know there is now spam or stress test going on. How worse does it need to get?

Do you mean that there is NO spam or stress test going on?
Otherwise your post makes no sense to me.  :)


Title: Re: Blocks are full.
Post by: Cryptology on January 20, 2016, 03:36:58 PM
Sorry for the typo. You are right. I meant no spam / stress test.


Title: Re: Blocks are full.
Post by: Amph on January 20, 2016, 03:40:10 PM
It is frustrating how much energy is being wasted.  Just scale the blocksize  already...

it need consensus, dev don't want to release something that will not gather enough consensus and be useless basically

they are trying to see what the majority want before decide their move


Title: Re: Blocks are full.
Post by: Lauda on January 20, 2016, 03:42:37 PM
The correct statement is 'some blocks are full'. You can't just jump to conclusions based on data recovered in the last few hours. Out of the last few blocks I see a few at around 750kb.

It is frustrating how much energy is being wasted.  Just scale the blocksize  already...
That can be a dangerous act.

i have not been into all this bitcoin stuff for so long , but from all i read so far , i cant realy see why so much people are hating on bigger block sizes. Becuse all i can see and hear right now is that bitcoins would benfit from it a great deal.
Because you have no IT background and have not done adequate research. How could you jump to such conclusions? With a block size of 2 MB it is possible to construct a transaction that would take over 10 minutes to validate which would harm the network.


Title: Re: Blocks are full.
Post by: Cryptology on January 20, 2016, 03:49:17 PM
Because you have no IT background and have not done adequate research. How could you jump to such conclusions? With a block size of 2 MB it is possible to construct a transaction that would take over 10 minutes to validate which would harm the network.

Fine. So what is the solution then? Staying with 1MB blocks and watch confirmation times grow to infinity?


Title: Re: Blocks are full.
Post by: Lauda on January 20, 2016, 03:50:03 PM
Fine. So what is the solution then? Staying with 1MB blocks and watch confirmation times grow to infinity?
The short term solution is SegWit.


Title: Re: Blocks are full.
Post by: Cryptology on January 20, 2016, 03:52:06 PM
Fine. So what is the solution then? Staying with 1MB blocks and watch confirmation times grow to infinity?
The short term solution is SegWit.

Do you know what is the current status of SegWit and when will it be released?


Title: Re: Blocks are full.
Post by: nichu on January 20, 2016, 03:52:54 PM
blockchain.info was offline for me ,whats really going on


Title: Re: Blocks are full.
Post by: Cryptology on January 20, 2016, 03:53:41 PM
blockchain.info was offline for me ,whats really going on

It is still at 11 MB.


Title: Re: Blocks are full.
Post by: BitUsher on January 20, 2016, 03:54:02 PM


i have not been into all this bitcoin stuff for so long , but from all i read so far , i cant realy see why so much people are hating on bigger block sizes. Becuse all i can see and hear right now is that bitcoins would benfit from it a great deal.
Because you have no IT background and have not done adequate research. How could you jump to such conclusions? With a block size of 2 MB it is possible to construct a transaction that would take over 10 minutes to validate which would harm the network.

While this is factually true in of itself , it ignores the larger context of it being trivial to protect against CVE-2013-2292 with the appropriate sigop protections(code has already been produced). Therefore it would be more appropriate to use this arguments against any idiots who suggest that there are no risks from simply increasing one variable, namely maxBlockSize.

Do you know what is the current status of SegWit and when will it be released?

Segwit has moved off the sidechain testnet into a open testnet since the end of last year. It is currently undergoing a lot of testing and these wallet/companies are supporting it -

Updated list of wallets/companies planning to support SegWit:

https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/

Latest one is my favorite SPV - Mycelium -

https://twitter.com/MyceliumCom/status/689518860727377920


... and electrum just ack'ed


Expected to go live in April.




Title: Re: Blocks are full.
Post by: Amph on January 20, 2016, 03:54:11 PM
Fine. So what is the solution then? Staying with 1MB blocks and watch confirmation times grow to infinity?
The short term solution is SegWit.

Do you know what is the current status of SegWit and when will it be released?

https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases-faq#roadmap


Title: Re: Blocks are full.
Post by: watashi-kokoto on January 20, 2016, 03:54:38 PM

Do you know what is the current status of SegWit and when will it be released?

Satoshi is working on it. Write him a letter:

Satoshi Nakamoto
Bitcoin Classic
Rue du simplon 4
Martigny 1920
Switzerland


Title: Re: Blocks are full.
Post by: Cryptology on January 20, 2016, 03:55:22 PM

Do you know what is the current status of SegWit and when will it be released?

Satoshi is working on it. Write him a letter:

Satoshi Nakamoto
Bitcoin Classic
Rue du simplon 4
Martigny 1920
Switzerland

Dude why don't you go and troll somewhere else?


Title: Re: Blocks are full.
Post by: Blawpaw on January 20, 2016, 03:56:02 PM
If we already know that the solution is a block increase I don't understand why it should be an increase to 2mb. If the increase is to be to 2mb in 2 years or less the community will be facing the same problem again.
So, in this sense, the increase should be to at least 8mb or even more.


Title: Re: Blocks are full.
Post by: Lauda on January 20, 2016, 03:58:36 PM
Do you know what is the current status of SegWit and when will it be released?
There's been a testnet for it for a while now. The planned release is April. To deploy a hard fork with consensus (95% or higher) it would most likely take the network more time than that (if we took that path).

If we already know that the solution is a block increase I don't understand why it should be an increase to 2mb. If the increase is to be to 2mb in 2 years or less the community will be facing the same problem again.
So, in this sense, the increase should be to at least 8mb or even more.
How about you don't suggest anything since it is obvious that you have no related knowledge?


Title: Re: Blocks are full.
Post by: partysaurus on January 20, 2016, 04:20:45 PM
The correct statement is 'some blocks are full'. You can't just jump to conclusions based on data recovered in the last few hours. Out of the last few blocks I see a few at around 750kb.

It is frustrating how much energy is being wasted.  Just scale the blocksize  already...
That can be a dangerous act.

i have not been into all this bitcoin stuff for so long , but from all i read so far , i cant realy see why so much people are hating on bigger block sizes. Becuse all i can see and hear right now is that bitcoins would benfit from it a great deal.
Because you have no IT background and have not done adequate research. How could you jump to such conclusions? With a block size of 2 MB it is possible to construct a transaction that would take over 10 minutes to validate which would harm the network.

Fair enough. im not taking sides just so you know im just asking becuse im curious. do you have any article or thread i can read to help me grasp the whole thing about why blocksize increase is a bad thing. right now im not for or against. but it seems to be a subject that stirs up alot of feelings.


Title: Re: Blocks are full.
Post by: Lauda on January 20, 2016, 04:24:25 PM
Fair enough. im not taking sides just so you know im just asking becuse im curious. do you have any article or thread i can read to help me grasp the whole thing about why blocksize increase is a bad thing. right now im not for or against. but it seems to be a subject that stirs up alot of feelings.
Well, I'd have to look for that information myself right now. The first thing that comes to mind is this:
Any examples of the 10 minute script (https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3yulwv/any_examples_of_the_10_minute_script_thats_a/). The best thing that you could do is ask the developers yourself on IRC if you really want to know.


Title: Re: Blocks are full.
Post by: BellaBitBit on January 20, 2016, 04:52:19 PM
This is great, this means that Bitcoin is hot!  This also means that a solution can be found from all of this frustration.


Title: Re: Blocks are full.
Post by: SebastianJu on January 20, 2016, 07:44:20 PM
We staying below the 1400 transactions per block and with the stress tests, we experienced 1483 and 1711 respectively, so we getting close to a average of 1400 transactions per

block, as a average. The thing that worries me, is the decline in the estimated transaction volumes. The only people smiling seems to be the miners, because the miners revenue is

averaging above 1 750 000 US.  ::) ..... Makes you wonder, why we seeing these high revenue, when transaction volumes are declining.

Forced higher fees. Many pay higher fees in order to ensure their transactions to go through. Wallets help with that by suggesting fees that will make the transactions go through.

That's the plan for bitcoin when it comes to 1mb fans.


Title: Re: Blocks are full.
Post by: SebastianJu on January 20, 2016, 07:46:05 PM
It is frustrating how much energy is being wasted.  Just scale the blocksize  already...

it need consensus, dev don't want to release something that will not gather enough consensu and be useless basically

they are trying to see what the majority want before decide their move

Then probably the only way is something like bitcoin classic since till now there is no suggested way to find a consensus otherwise.


Title: Re: Blocks are full.
Post by: SebastianJu on January 20, 2016, 08:05:32 PM
The correct statement is 'some blocks are full'. You can't just jump to conclusions based on data recovered in the last few hours. Out of the last few blocks I see a few at around 750kb.

Um, i think that was the old hardlimit for blocks. Some miners did not update that yet. It's no proof that all transactions were cleared at that point in time. It's fully up to the miner how many transactions he want to put into a block. It would be convenient to check the last blocks and found one of these blocks with only one transaction, the block reward, and believing that it shows the network is greatly underloaded.


Title: Re: Blocks are full.
Post by: Lauda on January 20, 2016, 08:28:01 PM
Um, i think that was the old hardlimit for blocks. Some miners did not update that yet. It's no proof that all transactions were cleared at that point in time. It's fully up to the miner how many transactions he want to put into a block.
That's not the hard limit. The 'hard limit' is 1 MB, you're talking about a 750kb soft limit. It is interesting because Antpool was one of those that mined a 749kb block, yet the block that they have previously mined was 930kb.
It would be convenient to check the last blocks and found one of these blocks with only one transaction, the block reward, and believing that it shows the network is greatly underloaded.
If I'm correct that is because of SPV mining.


Title: Re: Blocks are full.
Post by: partysaurus on January 20, 2016, 09:02:32 PM
Fair enough. im not taking sides just so you know im just asking becuse im curious. do you have any article or thread i can read to help me grasp the whole thing about why blocksize increase is a bad thing. right now im not for or against. but it seems to be a subject that stirs up alot of feelings.
Well, I'd have to look for that information myself right now. The first thing that comes to mind is this:
Any examples of the 10 minute script (https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3yulwv/any_examples_of_the_10_minute_script_thats_a/). The best thing that you could do is ask the developers yourself on IRC if you really want to know.

ok thanks for the link! i will check it out and will ask around search on the web after! :)


Title: Re: Blocks are full.
Post by: Kakmakr on January 21, 2016, 06:05:21 AM
If we already know that the solution is a block increase I don't understand why it should be an increase to 2mb. If the increase is to be to 2mb in 2 years or less the community will be facing the same problem again.
So, in this sense, the increase should be to at least 8mb or even more.

I guess the current line of thinking is just to kick the can down the road. You do not implement something before it was thoroughly tested. I agree with this thinking in the sense that developers need to scale Bitcoin without risking the integrity of the whole network.

For example - " In 2MB blocks, a 2MB transaction can be constructed that may take over 10 minutes to validate which opens up dangerous denial-of-service attack vectors. Other lines of code would need to be changed to prevent these problems. " - quoted from https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases-faq#roadmap

You cannot just dump bigger block sizes into the protocol and hope nothing goes wrong, because it is a Billion dollar network. Let's just approach this with caution.  


Title: Re: Blocks are full.
Post by: Karartma1 on January 21, 2016, 08:24:26 AM
I hear talking like the big guys we are here to defeat: this is not the FED.

If the economy goes wrong then let's give them some QE, then after a while QE2, then QE3 and so forth.

If we start raising the block size it will be like that in a way: tomorrow 2MB, in one week 4MB, you understand the trick.

This is not the $ and never it will be.


Title: Re: Blocks are full.
Post by: watashi-kokoto on January 21, 2016, 09:47:38 AM
If we start raising the block size it will be like that in a way: tomorrow 2MB, in one week 4MB, you understand the trick.


Simple and straight to the point. The end result would be simply that users on slow networks will be unable to catch up.


Title: Re: Blocks are full.
Post by: Lauda on January 21, 2016, 02:48:04 PM
If we start raising the block size it will be like that in a way: tomorrow 2MB, in one week 4MB, you understand the trick.
Simple and straight to the point. The end result would be simply that users on slow networks will be unable to catch up.
In the meantime Bitcoin would most likely have to fork back quickly somewhere between 2 MB and 4 MB else the network would be left in an unrepairable state.

I guess the current line of thinking is just to kick the can down the road. You do not implement something before it was thoroughly tested. I agree with this thinking in the sense that developers need to scale Bitcoin without risking the integrity of the whole network.

You cannot just dump bigger block sizes into the protocol and hope nothing goes wrong, because it is a Billion dollar network. Let's just approach this with caution.   
Classic has no roadmap or anything. Even if we disregard the safety risk of 2 MB blocks right now, we would have this same discussion very soon (if the growth is going to increase). There's a proposal that aims to fix the validation time being quadratic; we should wait for that to be implemented.


Title: Re: Blocks are full.
Post by: BitUsher on January 21, 2016, 02:53:27 PM

Classic has no roadmap or anything.

I believe this is deliberate as there isn't an actual capacity difference between the proposals as Classic represents another attempt at a change in governance with Toomin and Garzik in control(Gavin indicates he is just temporarily supporting and doesn't want to lead)

As stated here -
http://pastebin.com/B8YQr5TQ

The governance model hasn't been fleshed out but will involve consider-it that the toomin brothers control. There is a clear indication of multiple hard forks in the future to "Clean up" all of Cores code and keep increasing the blocksize.


Title: Re: Blocks are full.
Post by: thejaytiesto on January 21, 2016, 02:57:23 PM
You guys must be kidding me with this. Bitcoin works perfectly, I just send a transaction through my Core wallet, sent the recommended fee, and I didn't had any problems. Don't be cheap on the fees, and wait until 0.12 comes, and wait for SegWit, we can do this without raising the block size now. In the future maybe if needed, but right now, we have SegWit and we can resist until Lightning Network is operative. We must resist the pressures.


Title: Re: Blocks are full.
Post by: SebastianJu on January 21, 2016, 11:38:07 PM
Um, i think that was the old hardlimit for blocks. Some miners did not update that yet. It's no proof that all transactions were cleared at that point in time. It's fully up to the miner how many transactions he want to put into a block.
That's not the hard limit. The 'hard limit' is 1 MB, you're talking about a 750kb soft limit. It is interesting because Antpool was one of those that mined a 749kb block, yet the block that they have previously mined was 930kb.

I know it is the softlimit but i remember a discussion where it was said that the standard setting in nodes was sat to 750kb as the hard limit even though the blockchain allower 1mb blocks already. Not all nodes had changed that and people asked them to adjust that value in order to help the network. But it might be that still some miners use that old hardlimit.

I might remember wrongly though.

It would be convenient to check the last blocks and found one of these blocks with only one transaction, the block reward, and believing that it shows the network is greatly underloaded.
If I'm correct that is because of SPV mining.

You are correct with that. Only that it means that it is fully up to the miner how many transactions he put into a block. It can't be judged from the blocksize how many transactions could not be included.

But since you mention SPV mining. I believe the newest implementation was that, when a new block was found in the system, the miners start mining instantly with an empty block. in order to not lose hashingpower. Then it starts to check transactions and slowly put the transactions into the block, starting to hash on the block with the additional transactions.

That might be the reason why antpool creates such blocks? Dunno.


Title: Re: Blocks are full.
Post by: SebastianJu on January 21, 2016, 11:42:19 PM
If we already know that the solution is a block increase I don't understand why it should be an increase to 2mb. If the increase is to be to 2mb in 2 years or less the community will be facing the same problem again.
So, in this sense, the increase should be to at least 8mb or even more.

I guess the current line of thinking is just to kick the can down the road. You do not implement something before it was thoroughly tested. I agree with this thinking in the sense that developers need to scale Bitcoin without risking the integrity of the whole network.

For example - " In 2MB blocks, a 2MB transaction can be constructed that may take over 10 minutes to validate which opens up dangerous denial-of-service attack vectors. Other lines of code would need to be changed to prevent these problems. " - quoted from https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases-faq#roadmap

You cannot just dump bigger block sizes into the protocol and hope nothing goes wrong, because it is a Billion dollar network. Let's just approach this with caution.  

Well nobody feared what will happen when blocks are not 0.1mb filled but 0.2mb. There was nobody screaming around that it is dangerous. And even with 2mb blocks, 2 months ago NOBODY claimed any danger coming from that.

Though what i read, the threat might only be of theoretical nature, similar to a >50% attack. Though i would need to know if it is possible to create such a block even when he not verifies, since then you would not need a miner. If you need a miner then no miner who can creates block would kill the chance for his own block reward. And if this risk can be created with a normal pc then it would be possible to simply flood the network with such blocks even with 1mb blocks. Mass would bring the danger then.

And it seems there is already a fix for that which could be implemented in bitcoin classic and make it safe.


Title: Re: Blocks are full.
Post by: SebastianJu on January 21, 2016, 11:44:31 PM
I hear talking like the big guys we are here to defeat: this is not the FED.

If the economy goes wrong then let's give them some QE, then after a while QE2, then QE3 and so forth.

If we start raising the block size it will be like that in a way: tomorrow 2MB, in one week 4MB, you understand the trick.

This is not the $ and never it will be.

If it's needed to bring adoption forward then go ahead. Bitcoin will never succeed when adoption is hindered effectively. Sure there are potential problems, one has to deal with it like it happened all the time. And suddenly an arbitrarely setting becomes a breaking stone.


Title: Re: Blocks are full.
Post by: BlindMayorBitcorn on January 21, 2016, 11:44:38 PM
It's the Fullblocalypse!
http://trampenau.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/rotating_blocks.gif
Panic! Stop! Run away!!










(Ok now come back.)


Title: Re: Blocks are full.
Post by: SebastianJu on January 21, 2016, 11:51:38 PM
You guys must be kidding me with this. Bitcoin works perfectly, I just send a transaction through my Core wallet, sent the recommended fee, and I didn't had any problems. Don't be cheap on the fees, and wait until 0.12 comes, and wait for SegWit, we can do this without raising the block size now. In the future maybe if needed, but right now, we have SegWit and we can resist until Lightning Network is operative. We must resist the pressures.

Guess you don't get all the threads and complaints about newbies and established bitcoiners whose fees again were not sufficient. And fees will only rise now.

1mb blocks enable easy spamming too so that makes things worse.

I can't see when a big part of the community became that conservative and fearfull that nothing is allowed to change anymore because "what if".


Title: Re: Blocks are full.
Post by: jonald_fyookball on January 22, 2016, 05:39:05 AM

Classic has no roadmap or anything. Even if we disregard the safety risk of 2 MB blocks right now, we would have this same discussion very soon (if the growth is going to increase). There's a proposal that aims to fix the validation time being quadratic; we should wait for that to be implemented.

Lauda, so in addition to the 'quadratic' risk (for which you admit there is a fix but core is not implementing),
you're also giving us the 'nothing is better than something' argument.

Really seems like you're shilling hard for core/blockstream.  Not that I
think they are paying you or anything.  You just have a huge bias
and seem to always support their position and actions.  That's
my OPINION and my impression.  Just saying.



Title: Re: Blocks are full.
Post by: YoonYeonghwa on January 22, 2016, 06:01:10 AM
I guess that we need to see frequent backlogs in 30 - 60 MB range for things to start changing.
Exactly. That is the only way that people are going to realise that we need change.


Title: Re: Blocks are full.
Post by: Cryptology on January 22, 2016, 06:11:25 AM
I guess that we need to see frequent backlogs in 30 - 60 MB range for things to start changing.
Exactly. That is the only way that people are going to realise that we need change.

Yes. Plus bitcoin's price < $50 and Ethereum's capitalization taking over Bitcoin. We will have "consensus by fear".


Title: Re: Blocks are full.
Post by: Lauda on January 22, 2016, 06:41:27 AM
    Lauda, so in addition to the 'quadratic' risk (for which you admit there is a fix but core is not implementing),
    you're also giving us the 'nothing is better than something' argument.
    So let's set the situation straight. We have two proposals:

    1. 2MB Block size
    • doubles the theoretical tps
    • introduces a new attack vector
    • Simple change
    • Hard fork

    2. SegWit
    • Fixes transaction malleability
    • Fraud proofs
    • Simpler script upgrades
    • Theoretical tps possibly equal or higher than with 2 MB blocks depending on adoption
    • Somewhat complex; decent complexity for inexperienced users
    • Soft fork



    I'm definitely shilling for Core because obviously SegWit is not far superior to a 'simple' block size increase.  ::) I 'don't seem to always support them'. Do I support them in 'Core vs Classic', 'SegWit vs 2 MB blocks'? Yes.


    Title: Re: Blocks are full.
    Post by: Karartma1 on January 22, 2016, 08:44:41 AM
    I hear talking like the big guys we are here to defeat: this is not the FED.

    If the economy goes wrong then let's give them some QE, then after a while QE2, then QE3 and so forth.

    If we start raising the block size it will be like that in a way: tomorrow 2MB, in one week 4MB, you understand the trick.

    This is not the $ and never it will be.

    If it's needed to bring adoption forward then go ahead. Bitcoin will never succeed when adoption is hindered effectively. Sure there are potential problems, one has to deal with it like it happened all the time. And suddenly an arbitrarely setting becomes a breaking stone.

    To me there's one fundamental assumption to make: this coin is made of 21 millions pieces. We can break it into more digits but we will always have 21 mln unless we don't super hard fork it.
    Let's not be unrealistic: BTC is not for mass adoption. This is what I wanted to say in regard to my dollar metaphor.
    And, look, I'm not saying problems require to be left on their own but more thank a block size, hard fork debate I see different people's opinions having battles.


    Title: Re: Blocks are full.
    Post by: Zarathustra on January 22, 2016, 09:28:03 AM

    Classic has no roadmap or anything. Even if we disregard the safety risk of 2 MB blocks right now, we would have this same discussion very soon (if the growth is going to increase). There's a proposal that aims to fix the validation time being quadratic; we should wait for that to be implemented.

    Lauda, so in addition to the 'quadratic' risk (for which you admit there is a fix but core is not implementing),
    you're also giving us the 'nothing is better than something' argument.

    Really seems like you're shilling hard for core/blockstream.  Not that I
    think they are paying you or anything.  You just have a huge bias
    and seem to always support their position and actions.  That's
    my OPINION and my impression.  Just saying.



    He is shilling for the Politbüro. He loves censorship and totalitarianism. He tries to sell us a non-consensual monster fork that gives us 1.35MB as a 'short term scaling solution' in the year of the Great Halvening.


    Title: Re: Blocks are full.
    Post by: Matias on January 22, 2016, 09:47:49 AM
    If blocks are full, why average transaction confirmation  time doesn't increase?

    https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-confirmation-time?timespan=1year&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=


    Title: Re: Blocks are full.
    Post by: Matias on January 22, 2016, 09:49:27 AM

    2. SegWit
    • Fixes transaction malleability
    • Fraud proofs
    • Simpler script upgrades
    • Theoretical tps possibly equal or higher than with 2 MB blocks depending on adoption
    • Somewhat complex; decent complexity for inexperienced users
    • Soft fork


    What do you mean "Somewhat complex; decent complexity for inexperienced users"? Doesn't average user send bitcoins with segwit exactly the same as before?


    Title: Re: Blocks are full.
    Post by: SuperCoinGuy on January 22, 2016, 09:54:07 AM
    How much is the confirmation speed impaired when the blocks are full?


    Title: Re: Blocks are full.
    Post by: crazyivan on January 22, 2016, 09:55:58 AM
    It is frustrating how much energy is being wasted.  Just scale the blocksize  already...

    This. Bitcoin Classic is an obvious solution which solves this issue for the next two year. Large miners support it.

    So WTF is the issue then?


    Title: Re: Blocks are full.
    Post by: Lauda on January 22, 2016, 10:10:31 AM
    What do you mean "Somewhat complex; decent complexity for inexperienced users"? Doesn't average user send bitcoins with segwit exactly the same as before?
    Complex as in implementation, not the usage. Using Bitcoin will be pretty much the same.

    How much is the confirmation speed impaired when the blocks are full?
    It is not if you include the right fee.

    This. Bitcoin Classic is an obvious solution which solves this issue for the next two year. Large miners support it.

    So WTF is the issue then?
    1. It is not an 'obvious solution'.
    2. It does not solve anything, especially not for 'two years'.
    3. They withdrew their support.
    4. You wouldn't be asking such questions if you actually spent time reading threads. Two words: Validation time.


    Title: Re: Blocks are full.
    Post by: BitUsher on January 22, 2016, 12:11:41 PM
    In fairness to Bitcoin Classic , I do need to clear up some confusion... but I also added some other distinctions which make Core the better choice of the two.



    So let's set the situation straight. We have two proposals:

    1. 2MB Block size
    • doubles the theoretical tps
    • introduces a new attack vector(They are aware of this and including sigop protections)
    • Simple change(Yet not as simple as changing maxBlockSize, much more code needs to be changes for sigop protections)
    • Hard fork(Which is more dangerous)
    • Smaller team of less experienced developers maintaining implementation(5 devs , with 2 very experienced)

    2. SegWit
    • Fixes transaction malleability
    • Fraud proofs
    • Simpler script upgrades
    • Allows for one to prune the signature data and reduce the blockchain size
    • Theoretical tps possibly equal or higher than with 2 MB blocks depending on adoption(But likely an effective 1.7MB to 2MB)
    • Somewhat complex; decent complexity for inexperienced users to understand(UI and usability won't be effected )
    • Soft fork(are indeed safer than HF)
    • Has a team of dedicated and experienced developers testing and supporting it -45+




    Title: Re: Blocks are full.
    Post by: Amph on January 22, 2016, 12:41:00 PM
    segwit is not 2mb is actually less, 1.75-1.8, still it should suffice for the short term future

    bnut in the end they need to increase the capacity directly, this within the halving of 2020 must be done for sure


    Title: Re: Blocks are full.
    Post by: lottery248 on January 22, 2016, 12:57:32 PM
    this is in order to encourage mining i guess. if less fees, then the miners would not wish to secure the bitcoin, you understand that the cost of mining in bitcoin is too high, and at least $0.3 every GH and at lease 2 cents is gone per GH to pay the electricity, that would be a bit fair.

    this would not benefit the transaction, explicitly. that's why i would recommend for 4MB on this.


    Title: Re: Blocks are full.
    Post by: DimensionZ on January 22, 2016, 01:13:20 PM
    What do you mean "Somewhat complex; decent complexity for inexperienced users"? Doesn't average user send bitcoins with segwit exactly the same as before?
    Complex as in implementation, not the usage. Using Bitcoin will be pretty much the same.

    How much is the confirmation speed impaired when the blocks are full?
    It is not if you include the right fee.

    This. Bitcoin Classic is an obvious solution which solves this issue for the next two year. Large miners support it.

    So WTF is the issue then?
    1. It is not an 'obvious solution'.
    2. It does not solve anything, especially not for 'two years'.
    3. They withdrew their support.
    4. You wouldn't be asking such questions if you actually spent time reading threads. Two words: Validation time.

    Wait so setting the miners fee above the average can move your transactions faster even if there is a backlog? I didn't know that trick.


    Title: Re: Blocks are full.
    Post by: Lauda on January 22, 2016, 01:20:15 PM
    Wait so setting the miners fee above the average can move your transactions faster even if there is a backlog? I didn't know that trick.
    Of course. The higher the fee, the higher the priority of your transaction. I've never had any problems transacting because I tend to add the highest possible fee with the wallet (Core, using the slider) or add a custom one that is even higher.


    Title: Re: Blocks are full.
    Post by: jonald_fyookball on January 22, 2016, 01:32:48 PM
      Lauda, so in addition to the 'quadratic' risk (for which you admit there is a fix but core is not implementing),
      you're also giving us the 'nothing is better than something' argument.
      So let's set the situation straight. We have two proposals:

      1. 2MB Block size
      • doubles the theoretical tps
      • introduces a new attack vector
      • Simple change
      • Hard fork

      2. SegWit
      • Fixes transaction malleability
      • Fraud proofs
      • Simpler script upgrades
      • Theoretical tps possibly equal or higher than with 2 MB blocks depending on adoption
      • Somewhat complex; decent complexity for inexperienced users
      • Soft fork



      I'm definitely shilling for Core because obviously SegWit is not far superior to a 'simple' block size increase.  ::) I 'don't seem to always support them'. Do I support them in 'Core vs Classic', 'SegWit vs 2 MB blocks'? Yes.[/list]

      HUH?

      if its not far superior then why do it?

      Also dont see what that has to do with your comment of "we would have this same discussion very soon if growth is going to increase".

      whatevs. 

       ::)


      Title: Re: Blocks are full.
      Post by: Lauda on January 22, 2016, 01:39:49 PM
      HUH?
      if its not far superior then why do it?
      Your sarcasm detector has run out of fuel or has never worked in the first place. One could easily conclude from that list that SegWit is much greater of the both proposals.

      Also dont see what that has to do with your comment of "we would have this same discussion very soon if growth is going to increase".
      Because 2 MB blocks don't solve anything. All it does is kick the can a little bit down the road.


      Title: Re: Blocks are full.
      Post by: jonald_fyookball on January 22, 2016, 01:49:34 PM
         All it does is kick the can a little bit down the road.

      Right.  Hence the "nothing is better than something".
      You're saying you'd rather do nothing (and wait for segwit, etc).

      I say something is definitely better than nothing,
      even if it does nothing else than promote unity
      in the community. 

      Dissension is stirring because nothing has been implemented.
      I guess core is cool with that.  they've "got everything under
      control"...right?



      Title: Re: Blocks are full.
      Post by: gkv9 on January 22, 2016, 06:55:15 PM
         All it does is kick the can a little bit down the road.

      Right.  Hence the "nothing is better than something".
      You're saying you'd rather do nothing (and wait for segwit, etc).

      I say something is definitely better than nothing,
      even if it does nothing else than promote unity
      in the community. 

      Dissension is stirring because nothing has been implemented.
      I guess core is cool with that.  they've "got everything under
      control"...right?



      So, does it mean that even if the block size gets upgraded with the hard fork, the transactions will still get confirmed in the same time as proposed by Satoshi, i.e.; 10 minutes or will the blocks take longer based on being bigger in capacity???


      Title: Re: Blocks are full.
      Post by: Lauda on January 22, 2016, 07:24:01 PM
      Right.  Hence the "nothing is better than something".
      You're saying you'd rather do nothing (and wait for segwit, etc).

      I say something is definitely better than nothing,
      even if it does nothing else than promote unity
      in the community. 
      Wrong. You obviously lack the understanding in the soft fork vs hard fork case. Essentially a proper hard fork needs time to be deployed. Rushing it can be very damaging to the ecosystem. Currently in both Classic and Core what you're doing is waiting. You're waiting for the code and then you're waiting for consensus and deployment. In both 'nothing' is wrong as 'something' is being done.

      So, does it mean that even if the block size gets upgraded with the hard fork, the transactions will still get confirmed in the same time as proposed by Satoshi, i.e.; 10 minutes or will the blocks take longer based on being bigger in capacity???
      Confirmation time has nothing to do with the capacity. Blocks generation rate will remain the same (i.e. confirmations should take ~10 minutes).


      Title: Re: Blocks are full.
      Post by: jonald_fyookball on January 22, 2016, 07:56:44 PM
      Right.  Hence the "nothing is better than something".
      You're saying you'd rather do nothing (and wait for segwit, etc).

      I say something is definitely better than nothing,
      even if it does nothing else than promote unity
      in the community. 
      Wrong. You obviously lack the understanding in the soft fork vs hard fork case. Essentially a proper hard fork needs time to be deployed. Rushing it can be very damaging to the ecosystem. Currently in both Classic and Core what you're doing is waiting. You're waiting for the code and then you're waiting for consensus and deployment. In both 'nothing' is wrong as 'something' is being done.

      So, does it mean that even if the block size gets upgraded with the hard fork, the transactions will still get confirmed in the same time as proposed by Satoshi, i.e.; 10 minutes or will the blocks take longer based on being bigger in capacity???
      Confirmation time has nothing to do with the capacity. Blocks generation rate will remain the same (i.e. confirmations should take ~10 minutes).

      I'm aware that hard forks need more preparation.

      It is easy to say "nothing should be done without consensus"
      if you're one of the parties holding up the consensus which
      is exactly what core has been doing.



      Title: Re: Blocks are full.
      Post by: BitUsher on January 22, 2016, 08:09:19 PM
      It is easy to say "nothing should be done without consensus"
      if you're one of the parties holding up the consensus which
      is exactly what core has been doing.

      My position is quite the opposite in that I support the right of other implementations to openly fork the code and try and take over governance. Individuals without consensus should have this right, they should also be free to choose not to upgrade thus indirectly causing a fork, or choose to cooperate and submit BIPs or leave.

      The only reason the 95% of last mined blocks is mentioned is because we understand that it is not really measuring the vote of the people, nodes or economic majority but a less accurate indirect approximation of such a measurement by miners. Bitcoin classic should have the right to fork at 51% or 75% .... these are all arbitrary numbers... but since they are indirect approximations , the lower the number the greater a chance there will be two competing coins. This isn't a threat but a reality. In the short term it would be chaotic , messy , and both sides would certainly lose a lot of value/or one side dying off ... this isn't completely bad , but can create PR problems with investor confidence.


      Title: Re: Blocks are full.
      Post by: jonald_fyookball on January 22, 2016, 08:29:34 PM
      It is easy to say "nothing should be done without consensus"
      if you're one of the parties holding up the consensus which
      is exactly what core has been doing.

      My position is quite the opposite in that I support the right of other implementations to openly fork the code and tray and take over governance. Individuals without consensus should have this right, they should also be free to choose not to upgrade thus indirectly causing a fork, or choose to cooperate and submit BIPs or leave.

      The only reason the 95% of last mined blocks is mentioned is because we understand that it is not really measuring the vote of the people, nodes or economic majority but a less accurate indirect approximation of such a measurement by miners. Bitcoin classic should have the right to fork at 51% or 75% .... these are all arbitrary numbers... but since they are indirect approximations , the lower the number the greater a chance there will be two competing coins. This isn't a threat but a reality. In the short term it would be chaotic , messy , and both sides would certainly lose a lot of value/or one side dying off ... this isn't completely bad , but can create PR problems with investor confidence.

      well i agree completely but i also think 95% is unrealistic because if it was that clear, there wouldn't be an issue. 75% feels like the right number. 
      I think two coins would be bad.  one united bitcoin is ideal.



      Title: Re: Blocks are full.
      Post by: BitUsher on January 22, 2016, 08:44:24 PM
      well i agree completely but i also think 95% is unrealistic because if it was that clear, there wouldn't be an issue. 75% feels like the right number.  
      I think two coins would be bad.  one united bitcoin is ideal.

      You think 2 competing coins is bad but are ready to risk it with a low 75%? We have already have had multiple soft forks with 95% so I don't understand why you believe that is unachievable especially when the polls indicate that over 95% of the miners are ok with 2MB HF. The core devs are also ok with a 2MB hardfork in feb/march 2017 bringing it to an effective 4MB. So the only real contention is the the timeline ... but that can't possibly be the case because even with an extremely rushed HF, segwit is going live before or near the same time as classic bringing a similar capacity increase... which leads me to think that the true number classic wants is 4MB or higher capacity by mid 16' where they do a BIP 102 bump and than copy cores work on segwit.

      So if its really 4MB on the chain what is wanted this year ... do you think a compromise can be made where the 4MB+ capacity(likely higher because LN may roll out this year too) can be accelerated to later this year(Pieter already said that with high consensus a 6 month HF may be possible) instead of March 17' if we work together on the node drop off rate, talking about an IETF governance model for devs and mining centralization problems? Is this something even worth pursuing you think or are there other needs not being met?

      What I fear is that it really isn't about 2MB or even 4MB ... but this is BIP 101 which is the highest voted for proposal. https://bitcoin.consider.it/
      Are my fears unfounded... or are those numbers right and Bitcoin classic is merely a re-branded XT? If it isn't than surely a compromise for and effective  4MB can be found ... right?


      Title: Re: Blocks are full.
      Post by: jonald_fyookball on January 22, 2016, 09:18:17 PM
      well i agree completely but i also think 95% is unrealistic because if it was that clear, there wouldn't be an issue. 75% feels like the right number.  
      I think two coins would be bad.  one united bitcoin is ideal.

      You think 2 competing coins is bad but are ready to risk it with a low 75%? We have already have had multiple soft forks with 95% so I don't understand why you believe that is unachievable especially when the polls indicate that over 95% of the miners are ok with 2MB HF. The core devs are also ok with a 2MB hardfork in feb/march 2017 bringing it to an effective 4MB. So the only real contention is the the timeline ... but that can't possibly be the case because even with an extremely rushed HF, segwit is going live before or near the same time as classic bringing a similar capacity increase... which leads me to think that the true number classic wants is 4MB or higher capacity by mid 16' where they do a BIP 102 bump and than copy cores work on segwit.

      So if its really 4MB on the chain what is wanted this year ... do you think a compromise can be made where the 4MB+ capacity(likely higher because LN may roll out this year too) can be accelerated to later this year(Pieter already said that with high consensus a 6 month HF may be possible) instead of March 17' if we work together on the node drop off rate, talking about an IETF governance model for devs and mining centralization problems? Is this something even worth pursuing you think or are there other needs not being met?

      What I fear is that it really isn't about 2MB or even 4MB ... but this is BIP 101 which is the highest voted for proposal. https://bitcoin.consider.it/
      Are my fears unfounded... or are those numbers right and Bitcoin classic is merely a re-branded XT? If it isn't than surely a compromise for and effective  4MB can be found ... right?

      I would risk it with 75% because:

      1) I don't trust core to put the interests of
      the community before Blockstream's interests

      and

      2) I don't necessarily agree with their
      vision of how to scale Bitcoin.  I think
      main chain scaling should be the priority
      as envisioned by Satoshi.

      and

      3)  I don't think they should be in
      charge any longer.

      I'm not looking to persuade anyone of
      my opinion, just stating it for the record.










      Title: Re: Blocks are full.
      Post by: BitUsher on January 22, 2016, 09:24:34 PM

      I would risk it with 75% because:

      1) I don't trust core to put the interests of
      the community before Blockstream's interests

      and

      2) I don't necessarily agree with their
      vision of how to scale Bitcoin.  I think
      main chain scaling should be the priority
      as envisioned by Satoshi.

      and

      3)  I don't think they should be in
      charge any longer.

      I'm not looking to persuade anyone of
      my opinion, just stating it for the record.

      OK, so this isn't principally  about 1.6-2.5MB vs 2MB or HF vs SF  but a change in governance?
      You understand that the majority of people , even if they disagree with the exact details of cores scaling proposal still want the Core devs to contribute to contribute their valuable code and insights? This included almost all miners.

      So if this is the case there is no point in reconciliation or discussions. Good luck with your governance coup! I can tell you one thing ... if 45 devs get replaced by 5 devs because of some backend deals with payment processors and miners, I definitely will be on the other side of that fork. It is absolutely ridiculous to complain about not enough development distribution and than want to fire 45 devs and replace them with 5.


      Title: Re: Blocks are full.
      Post by: jonald_fyookball on January 22, 2016, 09:28:52 PM

      OK, so this isn't principally  about 1.6-2.5MB vs 2MB or HF vs SF  but a change in governance?

      To me it is.  I want decentralized development.
       
      I DON'T want Blockstream (a private company)
      having undo influence over a centralized repository.
      Which I think they certainly do.


      Title: Re: Blocks are full.
      Post by: tl121 on January 22, 2016, 09:30:12 PM
      If we start raising the block size it will be like that in a way: tomorrow 2MB, in one week 4MB, you understand the trick.


      Simple and straight to the point. The end result would be simply that users on slow networks will be unable to catch up.

      At least there will be something to catch up to and a reason to upgrade one's infrastructure if one needs to run a full node or wants to watch Netflix.



      Title: Re: Blocks are full.
      Post by: BitUsher on January 22, 2016, 09:33:19 PM

      OK, so this isn't principally  about 1.6-2.5MB vs 2MB or HF vs SF  but a change in governance?

      To me it is.  I want decentralized development.
       

      This doesn't make any sense ... Bitcoin Classic model of development is more centralized right now than cores. Their is no decentralized governance model established yet , and to assume there will be in the future is hopeful to put it kindly....

      I just think its a bit premature to get behind something that is currently setup under the benevolent dictator model. Wouldn't it make sense to first draft a governance model , than promote it ?

      I DON'T want Blockstream (a private company)

      Consider.it and toom.im aren't private companies owned by 2 brothers as well? You don't find any conflict of interest there?


      Title: Re: Blocks are full.
      Post by: countryfree on January 23, 2016, 12:07:31 AM
      Because 2 MB blocks don't solve anything. All it does is kick the can a little bit down the road.

      I guess we all know that. BIP 101 was suggesting 8 MB blocks last summer! This didn't go through so the bar has been lowered.

      I don't understand why most miners don't want to see big. We need to find a solution which would allow one hundred times more transactions. Let's imagine 1% of humanity doing one transaction each day. Does that sound crazy?

      That would be 71 millions transactions each day but the network is already stressed at 200,000 daily transactions. Unless there are major changes, I can't see a bright future for BTC. And change must come as soon as possible. Every single day without a change makes investors less confident.


      Title: Re: Blocks are full.
      Post by: Lauda on January 23, 2016, 12:18:41 AM
      Because 2 MB blocks don't solve anything. All it does is kick the can a little bit down the road.
      I guess we all know that. BIP 101 was suggesting 8 MB blocks last summer! This didn't go through so the bar has been lowered.
      8 MB blocks don't solve anything and neither does BIP 101.

      I don't understand why most miners don't want to see big. We need to find a solution which would allow one hundred times more transactions. Let's imagine 1% of humanity doing one transaction each day. Does that sound crazy?

      That would be 71 millions transactions each day but the network is already stressed at 200,000 daily transactions. Unless there are major changes, I can't see a bright future for BTC. And change must come as soon as possible. Every single day without a change makes investors less confident.
      I don't see why investors should become less confident. Bitcoin works and has a very strong network at the moment. The Core contributors are working on several improvements to the infrastructure that should enable the network to increase the block size. However, only off chain solutions such as LN solve this problem.


      Title: Re: Blocks are full.
      Post by: countryfree on January 23, 2016, 12:32:09 AM
      I don't understand why most miners don't want to see big. We need to find a solution which would allow one hundred times more transactions. Let's imagine 1% of humanity doing one transaction each day. Does that sound crazy?

      That would be 71 millions transactions each day but the network is already stressed at 200,000 daily transactions. Unless there are major changes, I can't see a bright future for BTC. And change must come as soon as possible. Every single day without a change makes investors less confident.
      I don't see why investors should become less confident. Bitcoin works and has a very strong network at the moment. The Core contributors are working on several improvements to the infrastructure that should enable the network to increase the block size. However, only off chain solutions such as LN solve this problem.

      Have you met a banker recently? Or asked for a loan? The network's quite adequate at this time, but this hardly matters. This is only the basic prerequisite before an investment shall be considered. And every eventuality shall be taken into account before money is to invested. It's like getting an insurance for your car. If there's a 16-year old in the house, it will cost more.

      I know and understand that several talented programmers are working hard to make BTC better, but they've been doing that for over 6 months! I want results. Investing in BTC today would be like investing in a company where the CEO is paralyzed.


      Title: Re: Blocks are full.
      Post by: BitUsher on January 23, 2016, 12:39:06 AM

      I know and understand that several talented programmers are working hard to make BTC better, but they've been doing that for over 6 months! I want results. Investing in BTC today would be like investing in a company where the CEO is paralyzed.


      Bitcoin was the best performing currency and asset class last year. If that doesn't satisfy you , I don't know what will.

      Bitcoin is an open source decentralized project ... not some company stock... If you are frustrated by progress the problem is than you aren't helping code or paying for a dev to write code.


      Title: Re: Blocks are full.
      Post by: AliceWonderMiscreations on January 23, 2016, 12:40:19 AM
      Investing in BTC today would be like investing in a company where the CEO is paralyzed.


      I disagree. I think investing in Bitcoin today is like investing in Apple just after the aquired NeXT and made Steve Jobs their CEO.

      Lots of people were sure Apple was doomed and had no chance. Trading near $10 a share at the time if I recall.


      Title: Re: Blocks are full.
      Post by: Cconvert2G36 on January 23, 2016, 01:04:30 AM

      OK, so this isn't principally  about 1.6-2.5MB vs 2MB or HF vs SF  but a change in governance?

      To me it is.  I want decentralized development.
       

      This doesn't make any sense ... Bitcoin Classic model of development is more centralized right now than cores. Their is no decentralized governance model established yet , and to assume there will be in the future is hopeful to put it kindly....

      I just think its a bit premature to get behind something that is currently setup under the benevolent dictator model. Wouldn't it make sense to first draft a governance model , than promote it ?

      I DON'T want Blockstream (a private company)

      Consider.it and toom.im aren't private companies owned by 2 brothers as well? You don't find any conflict of interest there?

      Never fear, governance model is built in:

      https://i.imgur.com/UxrfOqo.png (https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf)

      So now... you know.  :)



      Title: Re: Blocks are full.
      Post by: jonald_fyookball on January 23, 2016, 01:18:40 AM

      OK, so this isn't principally  about 1.6-2.5MB vs 2MB or HF vs SF  but a change in governance?

      To me it is.  I want decentralized development.
       

      This doesn't make any sense ... Bitcoin Classic model of development is more centralized right now than cores. Their is no decentralized governance model established yet , and to assume there will be in the future is hopeful to put it kindly....

      I just think its a bit premature to get behind something that is currently setup under the benevolent dictator model. Wouldn't it make sense to first draft a governance model , than promote it ?

      I DON'T want Blockstream (a private company)

      Consider.it and toom.im aren't private companies owned by 2 brothers as well? You don't find any conflict of interest there?

      Decentralized development doesn't make sense to you ?

      Not sure why.  Makes perfect sense to me.

      https://i.imgur.com/fDUWGe2.gif



      Title: Re: Blocks are full.
      Post by: BitUsher on January 23, 2016, 01:33:49 AM

      Decentralized development doesn't make sense to you ?

      Not sure why.  Makes perfect sense to me.



      Ok... we have had this conversation many times before ... and I keep repeating how I am for decentralized development and how that animation is misleading and the idea that adopting bitcoin classic will make development more centralized. Instead of addressing my nuanced arguments , you ignore them or give a very generic soundbite.

      This makes me worried that either you are spamming for political reasons without remembering our past conversations, a shill not remembering our conversations, just a brain dead idiot forgetting we just had this conversation multiple times. Either way you are hostile to the bitcoin ecosystem because you aren't here to make well reasoned arguments based upon evidence.

      I still believe there are some real bitcoin supporters who believe in classic but now am more convinced that there may be some malicious agents and shills trying to divide bitcoin and create internal infighting to slow progress and possibly split our community.

      Others take note of these tactics.... the evidence is all here on these forums.

        


      Title: Re: Blocks are full.
      Post by: Cconvert2G36 on January 23, 2016, 01:41:02 AM

      Decentralized development doesn't make sense to you ?

      Not sure why.  Makes perfect sense to me.



      Ok... we have had this conversation many times before ... and I keep repeating how I am for decentralized development and how that animation is misleading and the idea that adopting bitcoin classic will make development more centralized. Instead of addressing my nuanced arguments , you ignore them or give a very generic soundbite.

      This makes me worried that either you are spamming for political reasons without remembering our past conversations, a shill not remembering our conversations, just a brain dead idiot forgetting we just had this conversation multiple times. Either way you are hostile to the bitcoin ecosystem because you aren't here to make well reasoned arguments based upon evidence.

      I still believe there are some real bitcoin supporters who believe in classic but now am more convinced that there may be some malicious agents and shills trying to divide bitcoin and create internal infighting to slow progress and possibly split our community.

      Others take note of these tactics.... the evidence is all here on these forums.

      Point taken.


      Title: Re: Blocks are full.
      Post by: BitUsher on January 23, 2016, 01:47:17 AM
      Point taken.

      If you look through my post history I have made critical remarks and clarified some weaknesses within cores proposals and praised some supporters of Classic.

      I'm going to try a different approach going forward and not argue to clear up all this misleading information. I am simply going to try and provide educational posts clarifying technical matters regardless of the implementation as there is too much negativity and I don't want to get dragged down in it anymore. I do sincerely care about bitcoin and am really troubled about all the misinformation , coming from both sides on this matter.


      Title: Re: Blocks are full.
      Post by: jonald_fyookball on January 23, 2016, 01:58:17 AM

      Decentralized development doesn't make sense to you ?

      Not sure why.  Makes perfect sense to me.



      Ok... we have had this conversation many times before ... and I keep repeating how I am for decentralized development and how that animation is misleading and the idea that adopting bitcoin classic will make development more centralized. Instead of addressing my nuanced arguments , you ignore them or give a very generic soundbite.

      This makes me worried that either you are spamming for political reasons without remembering our past conversations, a shill not remembering our conversations, just a brain dead idiot forgetting we just had this conversation multiple times. Either way you are hostile to the bitcoin ecosystem because you aren't here to make well reasoned arguments based upon evidence.

      I still believe there are some real bitcoin supporters who believe in classic but now am more convinced that there may be some malicious agents and shills trying to divide bitcoin and create internal infighting to slow progress and possibly split our community.

      Others take note of these tactics.... the evidence is all here on these forums.

        

      I can assure you i'm not 'shilling' for anyone.  
      Everyone becomes biased toward their own
      positionalities and I don't believe you or I
      are any different.

      I appreciate the thought you put into your posts
      and maybe I should take more time to dissect
      them in detail, but I think the bottom line is
      we have different biases and risk tolerances.

      I think we agree on a lot of points.  You may
      be correct that core has the best qualifications,
      and I may be correct that Blockstream has
      undo influence on core.  And there may be
      no easy way to immediately get to decentralized
      development -- although I think that that
      Bitcoin unlimited has the right idea.

      Perhaps we can sum our differences by saying
      that I would rather have a revolution now and you
      want to take a more conservative approach.  

      EDIT: as far as the pic, focus on the right
      side...the BEST scenario.  Several implementations
      including Core, and no one group in control of
      Bitcoin!




      Title: Re: Blocks are full.
      Post by: tl121 on January 23, 2016, 08:40:57 PM

      OK, so this isn't principally  about 1.6-2.5MB vs 2MB or HF vs SF  but a change in governance?

      To me it is.  I want decentralized development.
       

      This doesn't make any sense ... Bitcoin Classic model of development is more centralized right now than cores. Their is no decentralized governance model established yet , and to assume there will be in the future is hopeful to put it kindly....

      I just think its a bit premature to get behind something that is currently setup under the benevolent dictator model. Wouldn't it make sense to first draft a governance model , than promote it ?

      I DON'T want Blockstream (a private company)

      Consider.it and toom.im aren't private companies owned by 2 brothers as well? You don't find any conflict of interest there?

      Decentralized development doesn't make sense to you ?

      Not sure why.  Makes perfect sense to me.

      https://i.imgur.com/fDUWGe2.gif



      Better than "best" would be completely separate implementations with separate code bases, preferably in separate programming languages.  Separate teams evolving a common code base continues the risks of monoculture.



      Title: Re: Blocks are full.
      Post by: calkob on January 23, 2016, 08:45:15 PM
      Can i ask, i keep hearing about bcklog of payments but any bitcoin i have sent or received or the last 2 weeks has got through on th efirst block, whats the problem?  is it because of no fees?


      Title: Re: Blocks are full.
      Post by: Karpeles on January 23, 2016, 09:32:45 PM
      Only at peak times, but the situation is corrected quickly and 99% of the times there is plenty of space in the blocks.

      Not an issue. For now


      Title: Re: Blocks are full.
      Post by: AliceWonderMiscreations on January 24, 2016, 03:05:04 AM
      With the alleged backlog of transactions, how many of those have really small or absent tx fees? Because my transactions don't have to wait very long. I just use whatever fee bitcoin core calculates for me and it just works.

      What is the common thread with transactions that are not making it into a block in a timely manner?


      Title: Re: Blocks are full.
      Post by: MyBTT on January 24, 2016, 03:26:33 AM
      I really didn't know that the blocks were that full that there is a back log. What are we going to do?


      Title: Re: Blocks are full.
      Post by: coinzat on January 24, 2016, 08:04:35 AM
      Only at peak times, but the situation is corrected quickly and 99% of the times there is plenty of space in the blocks.

      Not an issue. For now

      nowadays, it is very usual to have full blocks, it is not only in the rush hours ! I was thinking like you but It is a real issue, because even when you pay the proper fees you may wait two hours or more to get confirmed


      Title: Re: Blocks are full.
      Post by: Bitcoinpro on January 24, 2016, 08:14:01 AM
      Only at peak times, but the situation is corrected quickly and 99% of the times there is plenty of space in the blocks.

      Not an issue. For now

      it is when the bankers want FREE

      transactions, can you fkn believe it!!!!!!

      they close our bank accounts block our money

      transfers, but are soooo cooookeeddd

      they think we wont see them blatantly

      pushing mike and gavin around like
       
      ladyboys calling for free transactions

      ohhhh revenge is so sweet   :D


      Title: Re: Blocks are full.
      Post by: croTek4 on January 24, 2016, 01:07:30 PM
      Only at peak times, but the situation is corrected quickly and 99% of the times there is plenty of space in the blocks.

      Not an issue. For now

      Where did you pull that figure from? 99% of blocks are not full? I had a tx last week with more than adequate fee that took over 3 hours to confirm, and the tx i sent after that with an even higher fee took about an hour and a half.


      Title: Re: Blocks are full.
      Post by: SebastianJu on January 24, 2016, 11:52:53 PM
        Lauda, so in addition to the 'quadratic' risk (for which you admit there is a fix but core is not implementing),
        you're also giving us the 'nothing is better than something' argument.
        So let's set the situation straight. We have two proposals:

        1. 2MB Block size
        • doubles the theoretical tps
        • introduces a new attack vector
        • Simple change
        • Hard fork

        2. SegWit
        • Fixes transaction malleability
        • Fraud proofs
        • Simpler script upgrades
        • Theoretical tps possibly equal or higher than with 2 MB blocks depending on adoption
        • Somewhat complex; decent complexity for inexperienced users
        • Soft fork



        I'm definitely shilling for Core because obviously SegWit is not far superior to a 'simple' block size increase.  ::) I 'don't seem to always support them'. Do I support them in 'Core vs Classic', 'SegWit vs 2 MB blocks'? Yes.

        Well, if you want to be taken serious then you can't really add a new attack vector to the 2 mb block solution when you already know that it is no problem anymore with a fix existing. ::)

        You told me in the old, now closed thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1333937.msg13634824#msg13634824

        that you did not get what i was asking. The question was, segwit blocks can't be verified by non-segwit nodes(miners) but the nodes are forced to accept them anyway to enforce that segway will be able to create the blockchain without having >50%. Right so far? You claim that in no way 10% can create a fork. But wasn't it said that the blocks have to be accepted by nonsegwit nodes even when they can't check if the transactions are valid?

        And miners need to check if the last block was valid by checking if all the transactions are valid and check if the hash for the block is valid. With segwit blocks only segwit miner nodes can check, non segwit nodes accept it even when the transactions would be bogus.

        So what is wrong? That non segwit nodes can not check if a segwit block is valid and so would accept corrupt segwit blocks too because it was built this time for this fork this way?

        You did not say what happens when someone spams the network with segway blocks that are not valid but have to be accepted by the non segwit nodes.

        Then you claimed that the 2mb attack vector is no danger to 1mb blocks. Because the validation time is quadratic. The same transaction on 2mb could mean a 10 minute solve time, on 1mb only 20-30 seconds. But wouldn't the risk be the same the when someone simply creates 20 to 30 of such transactions, maybe in different blocks? These blocks would have to be checked all. So why is it no problem with 1mb blocks?

        And again you claimed the internal movement of bitcoins inside of lightning network are real bitcoins. Guess you don't even get why people prefer to buy material gold instead owning a paper that gives you the right on gold. Theres a clear difference and since you seem to not even get to think over your claim when everyone else tells you that your view on the topic is wrong, i will stop here like i said i will. It seems to make no sense to discuss this with you.[/list]


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: SebastianJu on January 25, 2016, 12:05:31 AM
        I hear talking like the big guys we are here to defeat: this is not the FED.

        If the economy goes wrong then let's give them some QE, then after a while QE2, then QE3 and so forth.

        If we start raising the block size it will be like that in a way: tomorrow 2MB, in one week 4MB, you understand the trick.

        This is not the $ and never it will be.

        If it's needed to bring adoption forward then go ahead. Bitcoin will never succeed when adoption is hindered effectively. Sure there are potential problems, one has to deal with it like it happened all the time. And suddenly an arbitrarely setting becomes a breaking stone.

        To me there's one fundamental assumption to make: this coin is made of 21 millions pieces. We can break it into more digits but we will always have 21 mln unless we don't super hard fork it.
        Let's not be unrealistic: BTC is not for mass adoption. This is what I wanted to say in regard to my dollar metaphor.
        And, look, I'm not saying problems require to be left on their own but more thank a block size, hard fork debate I see different people's opinions having battles.


        I always hear this comparision. The 21 million bitcoins was a core stone on the fundamental of the protocol. Mainly to ensure a protection against inflation. And now there really are a lot of people who dare to compare the 1mb temporary spam protection setting with this fundamental? And they even claim it's on the same level. Really unbelieveable.

        I see this fight, way too often fought with fears, the problem is nobody knows the future and only can guess about it. So everyone feels strongly he is right because his reality has come to realization for sure.

        Well, time will tell and i think the development of bitcoin will move on lastly based on the user bases wishes. And the past has shown that the users rarely want to adopt sidesystems beside of bitcoin. They want bitcoin, when bitcoin isn't working then they will take the fix offered. Well, that might be an alternative payment system where you have to bind your bitcoins into some payment channels or the promise of another bitcoin client who fixes the problem. I think it's not hard to guess what most users will chose.

        It's way too hard to argue what bitcoin was meant for. For me it's clear that satoshi wanted to empower the people to be freed from the power of banks. Which only makes sense with adoption. Even his plans on how miners will be rewarded make very sure what he thought should happen. Miners will be paid from the fees coming from a growing amount of transactions. The block reward will go down and slowly fees from the rising amount of transactions will take over the reward system.

        For me it's pretty much unthinkable that he implemented a temporary spam protection with the thought in mind to bring inflation to the transaction fees, blocking adoption, blocking not so wealthy people from bitcoin and finally make bitcoin a system used as a setting layer for another network which at the end can turn to be a system that makes that only big corporations will use bitcoin at all. Because the costs would be too high for the average user.

        It's so perverted to think that this could have been his plan. It's the full opposite of everything he claimed he wanted to achieve with bitcoin.

        But again... these points often enough are impossible to convince someone already having decided on a front. Well in fact not everyone is that way yet. There are way more users that only are wondering why bitcoin is not working anymore. ::)


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Anegg on January 25, 2016, 12:06:42 AM
        The backlog is just going to keep rising and there is nothing we can do about it. It is very unfortunate.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: SebastianJu on January 25, 2016, 12:36:17 AM
        this is in order to encourage mining i guess. if less fees, then the miners would not wish to secure the bitcoin, you understand that the cost of mining in bitcoin is too high, and at least $0.3 every GH and at lease 2 cents is gone per GH to pay the electricity, that would be a bit fair.

        This is practically a non-issue since what we see is showing only that mining is still so profitable that we have too many miners. We have so many that the network is 100 times more secure than it would need to be. Even when 99% or the miners would drop out the network would still be safe enough. Though in turn this would mean that the remaining 1% of miners would earn around 100 times what they earned before. Which would make more miners switching their miners on.

        So in general, there is ZERO need to pay more to the miners now. There is no right on mining profitable. Everyone starting with mining has to know the risks involved. And the reward the miners receive is fully depending on the market laws. Enforcing higher fees for the miners simply would mean an intervention into the free market. The rules how the rewards should develop were laid out pretty clearly already. No need for intervention.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: SebastianJu on January 25, 2016, 12:43:31 AM
        Also dont see what that has to do with your comment of "we would have this same discussion very soon if growth is going to increase".
        Because 2 MB blocks don't solve anything. All it does is kick the can a little bit down the road.

        Obviously that is true to any actual approach. At the end it is absolutely inevitable to raise the blocksize at some point in time.

        And yes, after implementing that arbitrary spam protection it was clear that a problem was solved but another born. Even LN or segwit are nothing more than kicking the can down the road a bit.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: SebastianJu on January 25, 2016, 01:40:38 AM
           All it does is kick the can a little bit down the road.

        Right.  Hence the "nothing is better than something".
        You're saying you'd rather do nothing (and wait for segwit, etc).

        I say something is definitely better than nothing,
        even if it does nothing else than promote unity
        in the community. 

        Dissension is stirring because nothing has been implemented.
        I guess core is cool with that.  they've "got everything under
        control"...right?



        So, does it mean that even if the block size gets upgraded with the hard fork, the transactions will still get confirmed in the same time as proposed by Satoshi, i.e.; 10 minutes or will the blocks take longer based on being bigger in capacity???

        The 10 minutes would stay the same after everything settled. The size of the blocks doesn't really matter for the confirmation time.

        The only problem on this topic that is time related is, when the blocksize ist NOT raised. Because that will mean that legit transactions will NEVER be included into a block because all blocks are always full and only the transactions with the highest fees get included. So if you included a lower fee then you have bad luck. Bitcoin won't work for you and you won't even know that it will be that way. You will wait only to find out that nothing happened. The fees will rise because everyone will fear that his transaction will not get included and so on.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: SebastianJu on January 25, 2016, 01:54:29 AM
        The Core contributors are working on several improvements to the infrastructure that should enable the network to increase the block size. However, only off chain solutions such as LN solve this problem.

        Which makes it effectively no improvement on the bitcoin network anymore. It would be a solution besides the bitcoin network, using bitcoin transactions in some way. A crutch to make bitcoin work while it is held crippled intentionally.

        Well i guess you now will claim again that it's all bitcoin. ::) I won't answer if you do.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: lumeire on January 25, 2016, 02:10:01 AM
        The backlog is just going to keep rising and there is nothing we can do about it. It is very unfortunate.

        That's why we need the lightning network, even as a temporary solution while Core devs patch up a perma fix.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: SebastianJu on January 25, 2016, 02:29:44 AM
        EDIT: as far as the pic, focus on the right
        side...the BEST scenario.  Several implementations
        including Core, and no one group in control of
        Bitcoin!

        Though that would only make sense when all clients would work on the same blockchain. For sure that will only be the case for a certain time. Though until a fork happens, depending on the setup of the clients, it might be a good idea. They would work on the same blockchain but clients are coded by different groups.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: SebastianJu on January 25, 2016, 02:39:03 AM
        Better than "best" would be completely separate implementations with separate code bases, preferably in separate programming languages.  Separate teams evolving a common code base continues the risks of monoculture.

        I think it's not needed to invent everything new since already thousands of thousands of work hours flew into the code. It would be sufficient to review code to be implemented, change code who is not working properly and so. Then all bitcoiners would have a way to chose the implementation they feel is the best at the moment.

        Though this will die quickly since one of the first decisions will be 1mb block or 2mb block, which will mean 2 different blockstreams and the same bitcoins on different addresses in each blockchain.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: chek2fire on January 25, 2016, 04:37:22 PM
        has anyone calculate how much block size we need to have paypal transactions or visa transcaction. Is more than 1gb block size. Is this ever will happen? I dont think so


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Amph on January 25, 2016, 04:44:33 PM
        has anyone calculate how much block size we need to have paypal transactions or visa transcaction. Is more than 1gb block size. Is this ever will happen? I dont think so

        isn't visa 2k tx per second? we are currently stuck at 3 per sec as average, so you do the math, 600mega minimum

        https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Tavos on January 25, 2016, 04:45:39 PM
        Right now Bitcoin's price is rallying and block are full. According to blockchain.info backlog of unconfirmed transactions is 11.6 MB right now and as far as I know there is now spam or stress test going on. How worse does it need to get?


        i have not been into all this bitcoin stuff for so long , but from all i read so far , i cant realy see why so much people are hating on bigger block sizes. Becuse all i can see and hear right now is that bitcoins would benfit from it a great deal.
        I think people hate it is because it could cause the community to divide if most people don't switch to the new version.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Lauda on January 25, 2016, 07:04:25 PM
        has anyone calculate how much block size we need to have paypal transactions or visa transcaction. Is more than 1gb block size. Is this ever will happen? I dont think so
        The best way to do this is to calculate how many transactions can be put inside a 1 GB block and then compare it to TPS of Paypal or Visa.
        If you assume that at 1 MB the tps is on average 3, that means that in a 1 GB block the tps is 1000 higher, so 3000 TPS (because 1 GB = 1000 MB). In theory a 1 GB block has a TPS rate of 7000, but in reality it is ~3000. According to the Visa website they handle on average 150 Million transactions per day which equals to 6 250 000 transactions per hour which again equals to a TPS rate of ~1 736. However, this is only on an average day. Their website says that they can handle a TPS rate of over 24 000 and in order to come close to that we would need (min.) 8 GB blocks. Scaling this way is very inefficient and problematic.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Amph on January 25, 2016, 07:40:23 PM
        we don't need 8 giga ever, there are currently theoretically, optimizations that can guarantee us more tx per sec than the average known

        i think none has read this it seems https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: AliceWonderMiscreations on January 26, 2016, 02:22:06 AM
        we don't need 8 giga ever, there are currently theoretically, optimizations that can guarantee us more tx per sec than the average known

        i think none has read this it seems https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability

        Real scaling will happen with regional favored altcoins.

        What I mean is West Africa will embrace one alt coin, South America another, etc. and most transactions in those regions will be done with those alt coins, with bitcoin acting in similar fashion as USD currently acts on the world market.

        That's what I see happening.

        And no, none of the current alt-coins look to me like they have a shot at being adopted by a particular region of the world.

        I suspect these alt-coins will have a shorter block time making them easier to use in point of sale transactions and use a proof of stake method of keeping the mining in the region where they are primarily used.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Amph on January 26, 2016, 08:29:10 AM
        we don't need 8 giga ever, there are currently theoretically, optimizations that can guarantee us more tx per sec than the average known

        i think none has read this it seems https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability

        Real scaling will happen with regional favored altcoins.

        What I mean is West Africa will embrace one alt coin, South America another, etc. and most transactions in those regions will be done with those alt coins, with bitcoin acting in similar fashion as USD currently acts on the world market.

        That's what I see happening.

        And no, none of the current alt-coins look to me like they have a shot at being adopted by a particular region of the world.

        I suspect these alt-coins will have a shorter block time making them easier to use in point of sale transactions and use a proof of stake method of keeping the mining in the region where they are primarily used.

        i can see this scenario more with sidechain than altcoin, altcoin would be a pain in the ass to regulate, sidechain are more tied to bitcoin instead, they should be easy to control

        i believe that altcoin will remain niche forever, and maybe more toward criminal activity if they offer soemthing like monero, and their adoption one day will emerge greatly


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: MyBTT on January 26, 2016, 08:33:39 AM
        Only at peak times, but the situation is corrected quickly and 99% of the times there is plenty of space in the blocks.

        Not an issue. For now

        nowadays, it is very usual to have full blocks, it is not only in the rush hours ! I was thinking like you but It is a real issue, because even when you pay the proper fees you may wait two hours or more to get confirmed

        Even with all the backlog, I can always get my transaction confirmed really fast. I really have no problem.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Ruhtilg on January 26, 2016, 08:39:45 AM
        we don't need 8 giga ever, there are currently theoretically, optimizations that can guarantee us more tx per sec than the average known

        i think none has read this it seems https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability

        Real scaling will happen with regional favored altcoins.

        What I mean is West Africa will embrace one alt coin, South America another, etc. and most transactions in those regions will be done with those alt coins, with bitcoin acting in similar fashion as USD currently acts on the world market.

        That's what I see happening.

        And no, none of the current alt-coins look to me like they have a shot at being adopted by a particular region of the world.

        I suspect these alt-coins will have a shorter block time making them easier to use in point of sale transactions and use a proof of stake method of keeping the mining in the region where they are primarily used.

        There used to be numerous country coins, like the Icelandic coins, Malta coins. These coins are not popular now. Most died. Digital coin is international.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: SebastianJu on January 27, 2016, 04:28:30 AM
        Only at peak times, but the situation is corrected quickly and 99% of the times there is plenty of space in the blocks.

        Not an issue. For now

        it is when the bankers want FREE

        transactions, can you fkn believe it!!!!!!

        they close our bank accounts block our money

        transfers, but are soooo cooookeeddd

        they think we wont see them blatantly

        pushing mike and gavin around like
         
        ladyboys calling for free transactions

        ohhhh revenge is so sweet   :D

        The bankers? You know that corrup Hearn is out of the game, i never understood why someone would want to work with him but somehow some did.

        But let's look at the other direction. We have bitcoin as the real currency. Now we have some people that try to build something around bitcoin and they want that everyone uses them to interact with bitcoin. Over time the transaction fees for bitcoin will rise pretty high with 1mb blocks. At one point in time it might be that case that they are so very high that only a huge amount of lightning network transaction put into one bitcoin transaction makes sense anymore. So that no normal person can pay the bitcoin fees anymore.

        The solution is easy then. Come use lightning network directly. No need to buy bitcoins, send us your fiat we give you virtual bitcoins on lightning network. You don't even have to touch bitcoins anymore.

        What would we have then? A banking system. Only big companies and banks would be able to use bitcoin anymore. In fact it's the same we have now in the fiat world.

        Well, this doesn't sound exactly like the great future satoshi envisioned. Though it seems some people have different interests while still claiming they are the original bitcoiners. Might be that there are alot of people who honestly think it will be the solution to not use bitcoin directly anymore.

        In fact i doubt it will come this far. LN will have a hard time getting established in my opinion.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: SebastianJu on January 27, 2016, 04:35:54 AM
        The backlog is just going to keep rising and there is nothing we can do about it. It is very unfortunate.

        That's why we need the lightning network, even as a temporary solution while Core devs patch up a perma fix.

        I think it's wishfull thinking to believe that the core devs now, somehow, come up with a perma fix. What they do mostly is pushing lightning network, which in fact is no fix but simply "Not using bitcoin anymore". That is no fix to bitcoin, it's an evading solution.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: SebastianJu on January 27, 2016, 04:46:23 AM
        has anyone calculate how much block size we need to have paypal transactions or visa transcaction. Is more than 1gb block size. Is this ever will happen? I dont think so

        Bitcoin has time to grow. There were times we used floppy discs with whopping 1,44 mb per disc. Now it's standard to use 1TB discs. That's 1000 * 1000 times more. Now check the time it took to get to that point and you will know when the time is ready that bitcoin can handle the currently used amount of transactions that visa has.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: SebastianJu on January 27, 2016, 05:00:14 AM
        we don't need 8 giga ever, there are currently theoretically, optimizations that can guarantee us more tx per sec than the average known

        i think none has read this it seems https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability

        Real scaling will happen with regional favored altcoins.

        What I mean is West Africa will embrace one alt coin, South America another, etc. and most transactions in those regions will be done with those alt coins, with bitcoin acting in similar fashion as USD currently acts on the world market.

        That's what I see happening.

        And no, none of the current alt-coins look to me like they have a shot at being adopted by a particular region of the world.

        I suspect these alt-coins will have a shorter block time making them easier to use in point of sale transactions and use a proof of stake method of keeping the mining in the region where they are primarily used.

        It would mean that not everyone in the world needs to have the transaction details of everyone other in the world. Because a big part of the transactions are in countries you will never care about. Which will decrease the amount of harddisc space you need.

        Sidechains sound like a better solution though.

        I wonder if it will happen since surely most people will prefer to use the real deal. Global network.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Cryptology on January 28, 2016, 06:29:47 AM
        Average blocksize has hit a new all time high according to blockchain.info -> https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?showDataPoints=false&show_header=true&daysAverageString=7&timespan=all&scale=0&address=


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Lauda on January 28, 2016, 09:35:28 AM
        Average blocksize has hit a new all time high according to blockchain.info -> https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?showDataPoints=false&show_header=true&daysAverageString=7&timespan=all&scale=0&address=
        Spikes don't matter, the average data over time matters much more. Spikes can be caused by huge numbers of things (e.g. spam attacks). It should be fine until Segwit gets activated (let's just hope that miners really want an increase as they say that they do). It will give a small bump that will increase over time.

        There used to be numerous country coins, like the Icelandic coins, Malta coins. These coins are not popular now. Most died. Digital coin is international.
        Private regional coins are useless; this is not what Bitcoin stands for.


        Just your everyday spam trying to manipulate the people. (http://www.bitcoinrichlist.com/charts/bitcoin-distribution-by-address?atblock=395000)


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: AliceWonderMiscreations on January 29, 2016, 10:23:13 PM
        Average blocksize has hit a new all time high according to blockchain.info -> https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?showDataPoints=false&show_header=true&daysAverageString=7&timespan=all&scale=0&address=
        Spikes don't matter, the average data over time matters much more. Spikes can be caused by huge numbers of things (e.g. spam attacks). It should be fine until Segwit gets activated (let's just hope that miners really want an increase as they say that they do). It will give a small bump that will increase over time.

        There used to be numerous country coins, like the Icelandic coins, Malta coins. These coins are not popular now. Most died. Digital coin is international.
        Private regional coins are useless; this is not what Bitcoin stands for.


        Just your everyday spam trying to manipulate the people. (http://www.bitcoinrichlist.com/charts/bitcoin-distribution-by-address?atblock=395000)

        Private are useless, but regional coins are not, just like regional fiat currencies are not useless.

        Why should the value of crypto-currency in Venezuela drop just because a bunch of whales in China decided to dump?


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Lauda on January 29, 2016, 10:33:12 PM
        Private are useless, but regional coins are not, just like regional fiat currencies are not useless.

        Why should the value of crypto-currency in Venezuela drop just because a bunch of whales in China decided to dump?
        Are you trying to tell me that people outside of this region won't be able to buy the coin? This is not going to happen; nor do I see how this could be properly implemented. This still enables people somewhere to "dump" whenever they want to.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: AliceWonderMiscreations on January 29, 2016, 10:44:54 PM
        Private are useless, but regional coins are not, just like regional fiat currencies are not useless.

        Why should the value of crypto-currency in Venezuela drop just because a bunch of whales in China decided to dump?
        Are you trying to tell me that people outside of this region won't be able to buy the coin? This is not going to happen; nor do I see how this could be properly implemented. This still enables people somewhere to "dump" whenever they want to.

        Of course they will be able to buy the coins, just like I can buy Canadian fiat.

        The way it most likely would work :

        Several business owners in a region get together to make it happen. Part of them getting together is so they accept the coin at launch, and make sure exchanges are set up at launch.

        Mining would most likely be proof of stake, so that mining for profit by those who do not already hold the currency would be minimized, keeping most of the mining in the region.

        It probably would involve a premine with initial sales of the pre-mined coins only to residents of the region. Those residents of course could sell to anyone they want, but they also could be used at any of the businesses that agreed to accept the coin before it was even launched.

        Sure some outsiders would buy and hold the coin, but there is no incentive for businesses outside the region to accept it so inside the region is where it will flow and have real value.

        Sooner or later it will happen, probably with many failed attempts first. India I suspect will be the first to do it successfully.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: AliceWonderMiscreations on January 29, 2016, 10:52:05 PM
        An interesting concept that could be tried is that blocks have to be signed by a key that matches a DNSSEC key in the country code TLD.

        e.g. for India, the block has to be signed by a DNSSEC key signing key that has a DS record in the .in TLD.

        That would probably keep most mining within the region.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Rizky Aditya on January 29, 2016, 11:12:59 PM
        Only at peak times, but the situation is corrected quickly and 99% of the times there is plenty of space in the blocks.

        Not an issue. For now

        nowadays, it is very usual to have full blocks, it is not only in the rush hours ! I was thinking like you but It is a real issue, because even when you pay the proper fees you may wait two hours or more to get confirmed

        Even with all the backlog, I can always get my transaction confirmed really fast. I really have no problem.
        Yeah. This backlog hasn't really had any impact on me. My transactions go through like normal.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Lauda on January 29, 2016, 11:15:34 PM
        Even with all the backlog, I can always get my transaction confirmed really fast. I really have no problem.
        Yeah. This backlog hasn't really had any impact on me. My transactions go through like normal.
        In other words, there is currently no backlog and thus the transactions are going through as usually (if you include a fee).

        -snip-
        As interesting as this idea might be, it is off-topic to this thread and thus I will not continue the discussion here.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Rizky Aditya on January 29, 2016, 11:17:52 PM
        Even with all the backlog, I can always get my transaction confirmed really fast. I really have no problem.
        Yeah. This backlog hasn't really had any impact on me. My transactions go through like normal.
        In other words, there is currently no backlog and thus the transactions are going through as usually (if you include a fee).

        -snip-
        As interesting as this idea might be, it is off-topic to this thread and thus I will not continue the discussion here.
        Ohhh. There is no more backlog. OP said there was and I believed him. That is great then. NO MORE BACKLOG. YAY.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Lauda on January 30, 2016, 12:01:41 AM
        Ohhh. There is no more backlog. OP said there was and I believed him. That is great then. NO MORE BACKLOG. YAY.
        Just because there are transactions in the mempool that does not mean that there's a backlog. ~11MB is not unusual. Anyhow right now it says:
        Quote
        Total Size   3100.4873046875 (KB)
        Seems like the situation is getting better not worse, right OP? This is what happens when you pull up data from a short time period and want to make conclusions. Don't.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: aarons6 on January 30, 2016, 02:53:49 AM
        Ohhh. There is no more backlog. OP said there was and I believed him. That is great then. NO MORE BACKLOG. YAY.
        Just because there are transactions in the mempool that does not mean that there's a backlog. ~11MB is not unusual. Anyhow right now it says:
        Quote
        Total Size   3100.4873046875 (KB)
        Seems like the situation is getting better not worse, right OP? This is what happens when you pull up data from a short time period and want to make conclusions. Don't.

        i been waiting for a transaction to confirm for over 24 hours..
        it says there is right around 4000 unconfirmed transactions.


        it doesnt seem to be catching up.



        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: justspare on January 30, 2016, 03:03:51 AM
        Even with all the backlog, I can always get my transaction confirmed really fast. I really have no problem.
        Yeah. This backlog hasn't really had any impact on me. My transactions go through like normal.
        In other words, there is currently no backlog and thus the transactions are going through as usually (if you include a fee).

        -snip-
        As interesting as this idea might be, it is off-topic to this thread and thus I will not continue the discussion here.
        Ohhh. There is no more backlog. OP said there was and I believed him. That is great then. NO MORE BACKLOG. YAY.
        I don't think that there ever was a backlog. If there was one, I never felt the effect on me.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Lauda on January 30, 2016, 01:58:03 PM
        i been waiting for a transaction to confirm for over 24 hours..
        it says there is right around 4000 unconfirmed transactions.

        it doesnt seem to be catching up.
        That is because either:
        1) You don't know how to use Bitcoin properly (fee wise);
        2) You're doing this on purpose (for whatever reason; there have been people wanting to cause panic);
        3) You're a cheap person (no offense).

        If you include the recommended fee it is highly likely that your transaction will confirm within the next block. I have never had this problem before as I include the maximum that the Core wallet allows on default settings (or more).


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: aarons6 on January 30, 2016, 02:22:20 PM
        i been waiting for a transaction to confirm for over 24 hours..
        it says there is right around 4000 unconfirmed transactions.

        it doesnt seem to be catching up.
        That is because either:
        1) You don't know how to use Bitcoin properly (fee wise);
        2) You're doing this on purpose (for whatever reason; there have been people wanting to cause panic);
        3) You're a cheap person (no offense).

        If you include the recommended fee it is highly likely that your transaction will confirm within the next block. I have never had this problem before as I include the maximum that the Core wallet allows on default settings (or more).

        i used blockchain.info and sent the bitcoin with the "quick send" option..

        no real needing to use bitcoin "properly"
        i have blockchain.info set to "Normal - Follow the fee policy suggested by the mainline bitcoin client. Recommended"
        so its not that im cheap?

        but its still not confirmed :(

        ive even tried to spend the output change with a higher fee as suggest by a google search..




        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: CIYAM on January 30, 2016, 02:24:22 PM
        but its still not confirmed :(

        Please provide a link to your tx.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: aarons6 on January 30, 2016, 02:26:16 PM
        but its still not confirmed :(

        Please provide a link to your tx.

        https://blockchain.info/tx/856dfa8dff5c1c20e7107cc32ac054886582494a834a556c2d4139e664fc3805


        i tried to spend the output like it suggests on google search, with a higher fee.. but that didnt work.. it got stuck too.

        edit: i also tried electrum to push the raw TX.. it said it did but its been awhile.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: CIYAM on January 30, 2016, 02:31:23 PM
        You tx is full of "dust" (I assume you've been using faucets or the like to have accumulated that).

        If you want to spend "dust" then unfortunately you have to pay more fees to do so (otherwise the network would just get drowned in such txs).


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: aarons6 on January 30, 2016, 02:33:01 PM
        You tx is full of "dust" (I assume you've been using faucets or the like to have accumulated that).

        If you want to spend "dust" then unfortunately you have to pay more fees to do so (otherwise the network would just get drowned in such txs).


        i dont see any dust in my outputs..






        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: CIYAM on January 30, 2016, 02:34:39 PM
        i dont see any dust in my outputs..

        You mean your inputs don't you (and I see a very large number of them)?

        Each particular input might not be "dust" but you have to add fees due to the overall size of your tx.

        (I'll correct myself that "dust" might not be the right term - but you have many "low-value" inputs which is what is causing your tx to be lower priority)


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: aarons6 on January 30, 2016, 02:39:59 PM
        i dont see any dust in my outputs..

        You mean your inputs don't you (and I see a very large number of them)?


        i think you are confused..

        if you are looking at the inputs you are looking at kanos payment address from his pool. not all of those are mine.








        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Lauda on January 30, 2016, 02:41:17 PM
        i used blockchain.info and sent the bitcoin with the "quick send" option..

        no real needing to use bitcoin "properly"
        i have blockchain.info set to "Normal - Follow the fee policy suggested by the mainline bitcoin client. Recommended"
        so its not that im cheap?

        but its still not confirmed :(

        ive even tried to spend the output change with a higher fee as suggest by a google search..
        Of course you need to know how to use Bitcoin properly. Not every user is the same. I would never touch a web wallet, especially not with larger amounts. Anyhow this is what I saw:
        Quote
        Fees   0.0001 BTC
        Seems too low for a transaction of this size: 11384 (bytes).


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: CIYAM on January 30, 2016, 02:42:24 PM
        i think you are confused..

        I'm afraid that you are the one who is confused - the tx consists of inputs and outputs and those inputs are part of your tx.

        (if you have no idea about how Bitcoin works then at least pay attention to those that are trying to help you - you did not pay a large enough fee)


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: aarons6 on January 30, 2016, 02:52:13 PM
        i think you are confused..

        I'm afraid that you are the one who is confused - the tx consists of inputs and outputs and those inputs are part of your tx.

        (if you have no idea about how Bitcoin works then at least pay attention to those that are trying to help you - you did not pay a large enough fee)


        so blockchain's "normal" fee is wrong.. i will email them and let them know..


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: CIYAM on January 30, 2016, 02:55:04 PM
        so blockchain's "normal" fee is wrong.. i will email them and let them know..

        I don't use their wallet service but perhaps that is the case.

        I think your tx will probably confirm but it will take quite a while.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: aarons6 on January 30, 2016, 02:57:44 PM
        so blockchain's "normal" fee is wrong.. i will email them and let them know..

        I don't use their wallet service but perhaps that is the case.

        I think your tx will probably confirm but it will take quite a while.


        if i import the wallet into another software can i double spend it back to the network?

        i dont know how to check how many nodes the tx went to.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: CIYAM on January 30, 2016, 02:59:56 PM
        if i import the wallet into another software can i double spend it back to the network?

        That is actually not so easy (as most major nodes will detect and reject any such attempt).

        Basically you will have to wait (up to at least 24 hours) for your tx to be dropped from the mempool (assuming it doesn't get confirmed before then) in order to "retry" spending your outputs with a different tx.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: labwork on January 30, 2016, 03:19:19 PM
        It is frustrating how much energy is being wasted.  Just scale the blocksize  already...

        it need consensus, dev don't want to release something that will not gather enough consensus and be useless basically

        they are trying to see what the majority want before decide their move

        Is there any estimate of how much longer this consensus gathering will take yet? I'm starting to get a little anxious here


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Soros Shorts on January 30, 2016, 03:24:08 PM
        You tx is full of "dust" (I assume you've been using faucets or the like to have accumulated that).

        If you want to spend "dust" then unfortunately you have to pay more fees to do so (otherwise the network would just get drowned in such txs).


        Not quite dust. More like using singles to pay $100.

        If time is not of essence these small inputs sitting in people's wallets should just be allowed to age and then consolidated using a low-fee, low-priority transaction. We did this all the time in the old days but it seems like many users today don't even know how.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Amph on January 30, 2016, 03:34:43 PM
        It is frustrating how much energy is being wasted.  Just scale the blocksize  already...

        it need consensus, dev don't want to release something that will not gather enough consensus and be useless basically

        they are trying to see what the majority want before decide their move

        Is there any estimate of how much longer this consensus gathering will take yet? I'm starting to get a little anxious here


        it seems that core is the primarely candidate, and the new update is expected around april, so you must until then to have a capacity increase and other cool feature added


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Edwardard on January 30, 2016, 04:06:14 PM
        You tx is full of "dust" (I assume you've been using faucets or the like to have accumulated that).

        If you want to spend "dust" then unfortunately you have to pay more fees to do so (otherwise the network would just get drowned in such txs).


        Not quite dust. More like using singles to pay $100.

        If time is not of essence these small inputs sitting in people's wallets should just be allowed to age and then consolidated using a low-fee, low-priority transaction. We did this all the time in the old days but it seems like many users today don't even know how.

        These income seems dust today, but when bitcoin becomes more value in the future, they will be valuable and any signal income can be spent to buy things and incur very little fees.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: AliceWonderMiscreations on January 31, 2016, 10:26:06 AM
        You tx is full of "dust" (I assume you've been using faucets or the like to have accumulated that).

        If you want to spend "dust" then unfortunately you have to pay more fees to do so (otherwise the network would just get drowned in such txs).


        Not quite dust. More like using singles to pay $100.

        If time is not of essence these small inputs sitting in people's wallets should just be allowed to age and then consolidated using a low-fee, low-priority transaction. We did this all the time in the old days but it seems like many users today don't even know how.

        There should be a button in the client. I don't think there is.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: jt byte on January 31, 2016, 11:33:04 AM
        It is frustrating how much energy is being wasted.  Just scale the blocksize  already...

        it need consensus, dev don't want to release something that will not gather enough consensus and be useless basically

        they are trying to see what the majority want before decide their move

        Is there any estimate of how much longer this consensus gathering will take yet? I'm starting to get a little anxious here


        You are right. It makes no sense the block size hasn't been increased yet.
        Either China has to decided if they want to stop the blockchain from growing, which should mean they are out.

        Or they support it and we will see a bigger block size.
        So yeah I don't understand we are at our limit and no estimate for a new code change has been announced yet.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: bob123 on January 31, 2016, 11:40:02 AM
        I also think the blocksize should be risen to 2 or 4mb.
        But transactions still working like they should. not bad at all at the moment.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: teddy5145 on January 31, 2016, 11:43:42 AM
        You tx is full of "dust" (I assume you've been using faucets or the like to have accumulated that).

        If you want to spend "dust" then unfortunately you have to pay more fees to do so (otherwise the network would just get drowned in such txs).


        Not quite dust. More like using singles to pay $100.

        If time is not of essence these small inputs sitting in people's wallets should just be allowed to age and then consolidated using a low-fee, low-priority transaction. We did this all the time in the old days but it seems like many users today don't even know how.

        These income seems dust today, but when bitcoin becomes more value in the future, they will be valuable and any signal income can be spent to buy things and incur very little fees.
        Then we can wait to spend that dust until bitcoin reaches $1000 ;)
        But as for now it will get rejected by the network because of how low the money being transferred are ;)
        Probably when halving occurs that money will no longer be considered as dust :P


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: aarons6 on January 31, 2016, 11:44:15 AM
        some bit of news.. my transaction was removed from the system.. like it never happened..
        i was able to resend the coins..

        i wouldnt call that working as intended.. its a HUGE flaw in the bitcoin system that would be VERY easy to exploit..




        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: CIYAM on January 31, 2016, 12:04:45 PM
        some bit of news.. my transaction was removed from the system.. like it never happened..
        i was able to resend the coins..

        i wouldnt call that working as intended.. its a HUGE flaw in the bitcoin system that would be VERY easy to exploit..

        Huh? It was dropped from the mempool exactly as it should (you haven't found anything to exploit at all).

        There is a reason why merchants should not accept zero confirmation txs (so if you think you have just made some major discovery then I'm sorry to have to disappoint you - but you haven't).


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: aarons6 on January 31, 2016, 12:22:31 PM
        some bit of news.. my transaction was removed from the system.. like it never happened..
        i was able to resend the coins..

        i wouldnt call that working as intended.. its a HUGE flaw in the bitcoin system that would be VERY easy to exploit..

        Huh? It was dropped from the mempool exactly as it should (you haven't found anything to exploit at all).

        There is a reason why merchants should not accept zero confirmation txs (so if you think you have just made some major discovery then I'm sorry to have to disappoint you - but you haven't).

        there should be no "exactly as it should" dropped transactions.

        a transaction that is left unconfirmed for x amount of time.. 1 hours or so max.. should be auto confirmed..

        this is a FLAW. this will keep bitcoin from being accepted in ANY business type setting..





        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: CIYAM on January 31, 2016, 12:32:03 PM
        there should be no "exactly as it should" dropped transactions.

        a transaction that is left unconfirmed for x amount of time.. 1 hours or so max.. should be auto confirmed..

        this is a FLAW. this will keep bitcoin from being accepted in ANY business type setting..

        I see - well how about you provide the "fix" then genius and show us all how much smarter than Satoshi you are. :D

        (am guessing you must have bought your account to be so ignorant about Bitcoin yet supposedly a Hero Member)

        You've earned a "heroic facepalm" (I'll let someone else provide the image).


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: aarons6 on January 31, 2016, 12:37:13 PM
        there should be no "exactly as it should" dropped transactions.

        a transaction that is left unconfirmed for x amount of time.. 1 hours or so max.. should be auto confirmed..

        this is a FLAW. this will keep bitcoin from being accepted in ANY business type setting..

        I see - well how about you provide the "fix" then genius and show us all how much smarter than Satoshi you are. :D

        (am guessing you must have bought your account to be so ignorant about Bitcoin yet supposedly a Hero Member)

        You've earned a "heroic facepalm" (I'll let someone else provide the image).


        serious?

        ok so say i own a shop.. i sell whatever.. i take bitcoin..

        am i really supposed to have a waiting area in my shop where my customers have to wait till the transaction confirms before they are allowed to leave??

        you dont see this as a huge problem?

        and no i been on this site for years.. and i been using bitcoin for years.. even buy and sell things with bitcoin.. and no i usually dont make my customers wait to leave.. ive never had a transaction just fail.. luckily that transaction was one i made, and since i am honest i resent it.

        oh and im guessing that since you think 4$ and 5$ payments are DUST and you should hold them till bitcoin reaches 1000$ you dont actually use bitcoin to buy anything. :/


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: CIYAM on January 31, 2016, 12:38:47 PM
        So if you know how Bitcoin works then why are you making such stupid complaints and requesting impossible features?

        While we get the devs solving your problem I hope that they can make me a time machine so I can go back and buy more Bitcoins in 2009 (which is about as possible as what you are asking for).

        I use credit cards to buy things online like 99.99% of the rest of the developed world (maybe you should do that to).


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: aarons6 on January 31, 2016, 12:46:47 PM
        So if you know how Bitcoin works then why are you making such stupid complaints and requesting impossible features?

        While we get the devs solving your problem I hope that they can make me a time machine so I can go back and buy more Bitcoins in 2009 (which is about as possible as what you are asking for).

        I use credit cards to buy things like 99.99% of the rest of the developed world (maybe you should do that to).


        if everyone is as close minded about this as you are i wish bitcoin a lot of luck for the future.

        i like bitcoin, but it has flaws that needs fixed.. hence this thread..

        and i cant see how fixing the transaction confirmation time is an "impossible feature" really.. if it took you an hour to get your money from the atm nobody would use them?





        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: CIYAM on January 31, 2016, 12:49:12 PM
        I have dealt with "end users" like you before who refuse to even bother to do the most basic research about how something actually works and instead make "childish demands".

        After you've gone and learned about how Bitcoin works then maybe come back and ask a question.

        But to put it more simply - Bitcoin is not for you - so please stop using it.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: aarons6 on January 31, 2016, 12:53:10 PM
        I have dealt with "end users" like you before who refuse to even bother to do the most basic research about how something actually works and instead make "childish demands".

        After you've gone and learned about how Bitcoin works then maybe come back and ask a question.

        But to put it more simply - Bitcoin is not for you - so please stop using it.


        HAHAHA if bitcoin is just for people that think they know everything on some forum then its DOOMED to die a horrible death..


        but good luck with your all knowing and god like libido, sorry meant ego.




        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: CIYAM on January 31, 2016, 12:55:32 PM
        HAHAHA if bitcoin is just for people that think they know everything on some forum then its DOOMED to die a horrible death..

        My guess is that you're actually a paid shill but have made such a failure of your "point" that you are just resorting to insults.

        Before you stop using Bitcoin I would recommend you sell your account (you should get at least 0.01 BTC for it and maybe even higher if you delete your silliest posts).

        (do you even know what the word "libido" means?)


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: bitlost on January 31, 2016, 01:24:51 PM
        well i agree completely but i also think 95% is unrealistic because if it was that clear, there wouldn't be an issue. 75% feels like the right number.  
        I think two coins would be bad.  one united bitcoin is ideal.

        You think 2 competing coins is bad but are ready to risk it with a low 75%? We have already have had multiple soft forks with 95% so I don't understand why you believe that is unachievable especially when the polls indicate that over 95% of the miners are ok with 2MB HF. The core devs are also ok with a 2MB hardfork in feb/march 2017 bringing it to an effective 4MB. So the only real contention is the the timeline ... but that can't possibly be the case because even with an extremely rushed HF, segwit is going live before or near the same time as classic bringing a similar capacity increase... which leads me to think that the true number classic wants is 4MB or higher capacity by mid 16' where they do a BIP 102 bump and than copy cores work on segwit.

        So if its really 4MB on the chain what is wanted this year ... do you think a compromise can be made where the 4MB+ capacity(likely higher because LN may roll out this year too) can be accelerated to later this year(Pieter already said that with high consensus a 6 month HF may be possible) instead of March 17' if we work together on the node drop off rate, talking about an IETF governance model for devs and mining centralization problems? Is this something even worth pursuing you think or are there other needs not being met?

        What I fear is that it really isn't about 2MB or even 4MB ... but this is BIP 101 which is the highest voted for proposal. https://bitcoin.consider.it/
        Are my fears unfounded... or are those numbers right and Bitcoin classic is merely a re-branded XT? If it isn't than surely a compromise for and effective  4MB can be found ... right?

        Very informative post here.


        Do you guys have a guess on the behavior of bitcoin price after the hard fork?


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Lauda on January 31, 2016, 03:21:49 PM
        Very informative post here.

        Do you guys have a guess on the behavior of bitcoin price after the hard fork?
        In the case of 75% vs. 25% (i.e. split) -> negative effect (how much is debatable and speculation).
        In the case of a high consensus threshold (95% maybe) -> neutral/slightly negative or positive effect.

        if everyone is as close minded about this as you are i wish bitcoin a lot of luck for the future.
        i like bitcoin, but it has flaws that needs fixed.. hence this thread..

        and i cant see how fixing the transaction confirmation time is an "impossible feature" really.. if it took you an hour to get your money from the atm nobody would use them?
        No. Segwit fixes flaws, a block size increase with Classic does nothing. The transaction "confirmation time" won't be "fixed" and is an impossible feature. If we start changing such fundamental rules we might as well move to another currency. Transacting money takes about a second. Confirmation time is something else and is usually 10 minutes per confirmation.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Matias on January 31, 2016, 06:16:33 PM
        Sidechains will  make transactions fast. In the future only minority of transactions will be in the blockchain.

        Sidechains will be implemented by soft fork.

        Edit: Lightning network


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Lauda on January 31, 2016, 06:41:57 PM
        Sidechains will  make transactions fast. In the future only minority of transactions will be in the blockchain.

        Sidechains will be implemented by soft fork.
        What are you talking about? Not only is this not related to the thread, but it is also false.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Matias on January 31, 2016, 07:30:34 PM
        Sidechains will  make transactions fast. In the future only minority of transactions will be in the blockchain.

        Sidechains will be implemented by soft fork.
        What are you talking about? Not only is this not related to the thread, but it is also false.

        Oops :P  :P

        Forgive my brain fart. I  meant Lightning network.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Mastsetad on January 31, 2016, 07:33:35 PM
        Sidechains will  make transactions fast. In the future only minority of transactions will be in the blockchain.

        Sidechains will be implemented by soft fork.

        I would like to the freedom to transact on the main chain whenever I want. I do not want to pay very high fee to send bitcoin on the main chain.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Matias on January 31, 2016, 07:35:40 PM
        ^ I meant Lightning network.  It will be cheap.

        It is impossible in the future to put all transactions in the blockchain.  And it is not necessary.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: CIYAM on January 31, 2016, 07:37:19 PM
        I would like to the freedom to transact on the main chain whenever I want. I do not want to pay very high fee to send bitcoin on the main chain.

        And I would like the freedom to travel in time with a time machine - but oops - you can't do that - why don't you wake up and realise that you can't use Bitcoin for zero fees as well?


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: SebastianJu on February 02, 2016, 05:11:59 AM
        there should be no "exactly as it should" dropped transactions.

        a transaction that is left unconfirmed for x amount of time.. 1 hours or so max.. should be auto confirmed..

        this is a FLAW. this will keep bitcoin from being accepted in ANY business type setting..

        I see - well how about you provide the "fix" then genius and show us all how much smarter than Satoshi you are. :D

        (am guessing you must have bought your account to be so ignorant about Bitcoin yet supposedly a Hero Member)

        You've earned a "heroic facepalm" (I'll let someone else provide the image).

        He will not have a solution but this is a serious problem. Who will use a transaction system where you have to guess if your transaction will go through or not? It would be unreliable. And this will only become worse the more transaction want to get into the blocks. Everyone will pay more and more to get included and so you never can be sure that you did not have a too low fee because others thought they would need to pay even more than you.

        An unreliable currency is surely not good for adoption.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: SebastianJu on February 02, 2016, 05:15:31 AM
        I use credit cards to buy things online like 99.99% of the rest of the developed world (maybe you should do that to).

        Which would be no fix for bitcoin but instead NOT USING bitcoin, like a couple of "solutions" discussed nowadays.

        Which bitcoiner in their right mind would have though some years ago that there really would be bitcoiners in 2016 that would suggest using credit cards instead bitcoin. Well, that is too crazy to invent it at that time. :D


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: CIYAM on February 02, 2016, 05:17:31 AM
        I use credit cards to buy things online like 99.99% of the rest of the developed world (maybe you should do that to).

        Which would be no fix for bitcoin but instead NOT USING bitcoin, like a couple of "solutions" discussed nowadays.

        If people want to keep on insisting that Bitcoin should do the impossible (and then whine when it doesn't) then that really isn't my fault is it.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: STAZZY on February 02, 2016, 05:20:02 AM
        Increasing the blocksize to 8MB per block should decrease this problem. ;)


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: SebastianJu on February 02, 2016, 05:24:44 AM
        Do you guys have a guess on the behavior of bitcoin price after the hard fork?

        Depends on which bitcoins you mean. Might be that one bitcoin exists one one address on one chain but the same bitcoin lies on another address on the other chain. Then which bitcoin is the real one being worth $400?

        I think to be sure i would have to see if i can only receive coins that are the same on both chains. Then it wouldn't matter to you when one chain loses and your coins are on this chain.

        At the end it's not so easy to bet on which chain will win. That is why normally a threshold is implemented. Only when a big amount of nodes switch to the new behaviour then the fork happens. Which pretty much ensures that this new chain will win because it is unlikely that supporters drop the support then suddenly.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: SebastianJu on February 02, 2016, 05:31:42 AM
        I use credit cards to buy things online like 99.99% of the rest of the developed world (maybe you should do that to).

        Which would be no fix for bitcoin but instead NOT USING bitcoin, like a couple of "solutions" discussed nowadays.

        If people want to keep on insisting that Bitcoin should do the impossible (and then whine when it doesn't) then that really isn't my fault is it.


        Don't fear that, no one will claim you are at fault then. ;) You can always say "Told you so." Provable. :D

        Well, when i think about it, satoshi must have had a brainfart when he really thought bitcoin will receive a worldwide adoption so far that the additional fees from the higher amount of fees will make up for the block halving over time.

        I wonder if he really was that stupid. Implemented a temporary spam protection but still believed in an amount of worldwide transactions that should make it clear that he never thought of that setting as a permanent thing.

        To be honest, i would trust satoshies jugdement here clearly. He is the brain behind and the things going on with blockstream look suspect to me. I mean it even contains the risk that instead going away from the banking system we will create a new banking system, shutting out normal users from bitcoin itself.

        Well, this looks so very much against what satoshi wanted but i guess it's not seeable for a lot of people.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: CIYAM on February 02, 2016, 05:35:14 AM
        To be honest, i would trust satoshies jugdement here clearly.

        Satoshi made quite a few mistakes so hero worshiping of him is not really an answer to anything.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: SebastianJu on February 02, 2016, 05:45:58 AM
        To be honest, i would trust satoshies jugdement here clearly.

        Satoshi made quite a few mistakes so hero worshiping of him is not really an answer to anything.


        I'm not aware of such errors. Can you give some examples?

        And it's no worshipping, more a kind of trust. And trust is everything with cryptocoins. For example to trust which chain wins. :D


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: CIYAM on February 02, 2016, 06:57:58 AM
        I'm not aware of such errors. Can you give some examples?

        One bug would have resulted in the block reward coming back (at 50 BTC per block) when it should have been zero (so the supply was not actually 21M).

        He didn't even predict GPU mining (that seemed to take him completely by surprise and he basically asked people not to do it).

        (and there are plenty of other things)


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: mavericklm on February 02, 2016, 07:04:36 AM
        tell that to antpool and other idiot pool operators:

        block: 396256
        transactions: 1
        relayed by AntPool
        size of the block: 0.2kb!!!


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Amph on February 02, 2016, 08:20:58 AM
        Increasing the blocksize to 8MB per block should decrease this problem. ;)

        lol, it will certainly increase other problem, see the main concernt about capacity increase

        i must admit that many of those problem are not real problem, they seems more a way to say that we don't want any capacity increase

        but peopel tend to forget that bitcoin started with 32mb...


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: CIYAM on February 02, 2016, 08:24:30 AM
        but peopel tend to forget that bitcoin started with 32mb...

        There have been no actual blocks created that are bigger than 1MB so it really doesn't matter what was coded back then (you are seemingly trying to imply that we used to have bigger blocks but the fact is that we did not).


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: SebastianJu on February 02, 2016, 08:59:21 AM
        I'm not aware of such errors. Can you give some examples?

        One bug would have resulted in the block reward coming back (at 50 BTC per block) when it should have been zero (so the supply was not actually 21M).

        He didn't even predict GPU mining (that seemed to take him completely by surprise and he basically asked people not to do it).

        (and there are plenty of other things)


        *lol* The GPU-Mining is actually pretty funny. I really did not anticipate such thing from him. Well he probably was surprised by the worth bitcoin reached and had not thought through the following effects.

        The thing with the block reward sound like a software bug that might happen when coding. Well, it would have been enough time until that effect would have been triggered. :P


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Lauda on February 02, 2016, 09:28:56 AM
        tell that to antpool and other idiot pool operators:

        block: 396256
        transactions: 1
        relayed by AntPool
        size of the block: 0.2kb!!!
        The actual number of blocks that are full would be reduced and so would the size of the mempool if they weren't doing this. The Bitcoin network can handle more at 1 MB blocks, but it is the miners fault.

        There have been no actual blocks created that are bigger than 1MB so it really doesn't matter what was coded back then (you are seemingly trying to imply that we used to have bigger blocks but the fact is that we did not).
        This is correct. Such blocks are impossible right now. Also just ignore SebastianJu as he doesn't understand the second layer at all (and the connection to the first one) and refuses to do so. Discussing is pointless, it is better move on.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Amph on February 02, 2016, 11:21:49 AM
        but peopel tend to forget that bitcoin started with 32mb...

        There have been no actual blocks created that are bigger than 1MB so it really doesn't matter what was coded back then (you are seemingly trying to imply that we used to have bigger blocks but the fact is that we did not).

        no, i'm just implying that all the concern about bigger block, are a bit vaporware, because it's possible to have bigger block even now, without all the issues that everyone is talking about

        for example there is no cpu or bandwidth issue, like many are advocating, https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability and there are possible optimization to avoid other known issue...

        is just unconvenient for somebody to increase it directly, that's it


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: mavericklm on February 02, 2016, 11:26:25 AM
        tell that to antpool and other idiot pool operators:

        block: 396256
        transactions: 1
        relayed by AntPool
        size of the block: 0.2kb!!!
        The actual number of blocks that are full would be reduced and so would the size of the mempool if they weren't doing this. The Bitcoin network can handle more at 1 MB blocks, but it is the miners fault.

        A=> we don't need bigger blocks atm
        B=> why should i wipe my ass 10 times, if 5 times is enough ::) & go back to A!


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: sgbett on February 02, 2016, 12:11:13 PM
        tell that to antpool and other idiot pool operators:

        block: 396256
        transactions: 1
        relayed by AntPool
        size of the block: 0.2kb!!!
        The actual number of blocks that are full would be reduced and so would the size of the mempool if they weren't doing this. The Bitcoin network can handle more at 1 MB blocks, but it is the miners fault.

        A=> we don't need bigger blocks atm
        B=> why should i wipe my ass 10 times, if 5 times is enough ::) & go back to A!

        There seems to be an error in your declaration at line A!


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: chek2fire on February 02, 2016, 03:05:41 PM
        all of them that say about to increase block size they want a situation like this.. :P

        https://etherchain.org/blocks

        where 90% of the blocks are empty


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: elizabethqueen on February 03, 2016, 07:29:24 AM
        Right now Bitcoin's price is rallying and block are full. According to blockchain.info backlog of unconfirmed transactions is 11.6 MB right now and as far as I know there is now spam or stress test going on. How worse does it need to get?
        it seems not as you think,blocks are not full,many people comment like that,and now i just knowing that unconfirmed transactions is 11.6 MB,is not happen many times.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Matias on February 03, 2016, 07:44:31 AM
        What do you think, will Antpool stop mining blocks with 0 transactions after block reward halving?

        Here is again block with zero transactions

        https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000000082c86f9a810bc6d0ec540e76360b59587a460b9706c01df

        There are worth of 0.71 TX fees waiting for collecting, so it is crazy to leave money on the table.

        https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: RealBitcoin on February 03, 2016, 08:17:58 AM
        Right now Bitcoin's price is rallying and block are full. According to blockchain.info backlog of unconfirmed transactions is 11.6 MB right now and as far as I know there is now spam or stress test going on. How worse does it need to get?

        It is hovering around 3000-4000 at the moment. It's no big deal, get over it.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Matias on February 03, 2016, 08:35:43 AM
        Transaction rate is now 2.03/second and I think maximum troughput should be at least 3 (7 is theoretical limit, but maybe 3 in practice??).

        My question is, why are there that many unconfirmed actions at this rate? Is it solely because some mine blocks with 0 transactions?


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Amph on February 03, 2016, 08:37:39 AM
        Transaction rate is now 2.03/second and I think maximum troughput should be at least 3 (7 is theoretical limit, but maybe 3 in practice??).

        My question is, why are there that many unconfirmed actions at this rate? Is it solely because some mine blocks with 0 transactions?

        because there are not appropriate fee, and the average is 3 because, you need to factor multisig which use more space, so 7 per second is out of question


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: RealBitcoin on February 03, 2016, 08:38:37 AM
        Transaction rate is now 2.03/second and I think maximum troughput should be at least 3 (7 is theoretical limit, but maybe 3 in practice??).

        My question is, why are there that many unconfirmed actions at this rate? Is it solely because some mine blocks with 0 transactions?

        because there are not appropriate fee, and the average is 3 because, you need to factor multisig which use more space, so 7 per second is out of question

        Not many people use multisig transactions, I have never used them.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Amph on February 03, 2016, 08:58:10 AM
        Transaction rate is now 2.03/second and I think maximum troughput should be at least 3 (7 is theoretical limit, but maybe 3 in practice??).

        My question is, why are there that many unconfirmed actions at this rate? Is it solely because some mine blocks with 0 transactions?

        because there are not appropriate fee, and the average is 3 because, you need to factor multisig which use more space, so 7 per second is out of question

        Not many people use multisig transactions, I have never used them.

        service use plenty of multisig, kraken or purse.io or any other exchange use it, so yes they are vastly used


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Matias on February 03, 2016, 09:02:36 AM
        Transaction rate is now 2.03/second and I think maximum troughput should be at least 3 (7 is theoretical limit, but maybe 3 in practice??).

        My question is, why are there that many unconfirmed actions at this rate? Is it solely because some mine blocks with 0 transactions?

        because there are not appropriate fee..

        I guess block reward halving is a good thing, because that makes current fees more interesting to miners.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: mickiya on February 03, 2016, 09:39:18 AM
        tell that to antpool and other idiot pool operators:

        block: 396256
        transactions: 1
        relayed by AntPool
        size of the block: 0.2kb!!!
        The actual number of blocks that are full would be reduced and so would the size of the mempool if they weren't doing this. The Bitcoin network can handle more at 1 MB blocks, but it is the miners fault.

        A=> we don't need bigger blocks atm
        B=> why should i wipe my ass 10 times, if 5 times is enough ::) & go back to A!

        Do you mean we should change the block time to 5 mins? That will create a lot of orphan blocks.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Denker on February 03, 2016, 10:09:46 AM
        Transaction rate is now 2.03/second and I think maximum troughput should be at least 3 (7 is theoretical limit, but maybe 3 in practice??).

        My question is, why are there that many unconfirmed actions at this rate? Is it solely because some mine blocks with 0 transactions?

        because there are not appropriate fee..

        I guess block reward halving is a good thing, because that makes current fees more interesting to miners.

        Sure. The block reward will be less over the next years and decades.
        Therefore fees have to increase and number of transactions to rise to build enough incentive for the miners to continue securing the network.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: mickiya on February 03, 2016, 10:52:24 AM
        Transaction rate is now 2.03/second and I think maximum troughput should be at least 3 (7 is theoretical limit, but maybe 3 in practice??).

        My question is, why are there that many unconfirmed actions at this rate? Is it solely because some mine blocks with 0 transactions?

        because there are not appropriate fee..

        I guess block reward halving is a good thing, because that makes current fees more interesting to miners.

        I think the miners are more interested in the total fees they earn. So the transaction fee will have to rise in the future.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: aarons6 on February 03, 2016, 06:09:43 PM
        Transaction rate is now 2.03/second and I think maximum troughput should be at least 3 (7 is theoretical limit, but maybe 3 in practice??).

        My question is, why are there that many unconfirmed actions at this rate? Is it solely because some mine blocks with 0 transactions?

        because there are not appropriate fee..

        I guess block reward halving is a good thing, because that makes current fees more interesting to miners.

        I think the miners are more interested in the total fees they earn. So the transaction fee will have to rise in the future.


        also the 2 biggest pools, antpool and f2pool dont pay the fees to the miners..



        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: mickiya on February 04, 2016, 07:54:10 AM
        Transaction rate is now 2.03/second and I think maximum troughput should be at least 3 (7 is theoretical limit, but maybe 3 in practice??).

        My question is, why are there that many unconfirmed actions at this rate? Is it solely because some mine blocks with 0 transactions?

        because there are not appropriate fee..

        I guess block reward halving is a good thing, because that makes current fees more interesting to miners.

        I think the miners are more interested in the total fees they earn. So the transaction fee will have to rise in the future.


        also the 2 biggest pools, antpool and f2pool dont pay the fees to the miners..



        That is a big earning loss for the miners. When the block reward is lower in the future, nobody else will mine there.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: sgbett on February 04, 2016, 10:58:32 AM
        What do you think, will Antpool stop mining blocks with 0 transactions after block reward halving?

        Here is again block with zero transactions

        https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000000082c86f9a810bc6d0ec540e76360b59587a460b9706c01df

        There are worth of 0.71 TX fees waiting for collecting, so it is crazy to leave money on the table.

        https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions

        0.71 is 2.8% of 25 which is what they get for mining block reward.

        There is a delay between knowing a block has been mined (that you can build on) and knowing which transactions were in that block.

        If you are able to find a block in that time, then you would have to be > 97.2% sure that you could hang around whilst you dump the transactions still in your mempool that were mined in the previous block, and fill up your just found block with the most profitable ones, before somebody else found a block.

        You have 100% chance of getting 25BTC - your EV is 25BTC
        You want a > 97.2% chance of not being beaten to get your EV over 25

        Over thousands of blocks that could add up to a reasonable amount, but you would then have to weigh that against the cost of implementing something that figures out whether its worthwhile by calculating orphan rates, and the risks associated with that (variance/reliability).

        Or you could just throw out an empty block and take the 25BTC off the table. Knowing that the other 0.71 BTC are still on the table, and so you still have a chance to at getting them anyway by mining the next block (which you have a minor advantage to get as you solved the last block)


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Matias on February 04, 2016, 03:00:11 PM
        "0.71 is 2.8% of 25 which is what they get for mining block reward."

        True. But my point was, that after block halving that is 5.6% so that may change the situation.

        BTW, how long it takes to load and distribute to the miners the transactions?


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: sgbett on February 04, 2016, 07:58:33 PM
        "0.71 is 2.8% of 25 which is what they get for mining block reward."

        True. But my point was, that after block halving that is 5.6% so that may change the situation.

        BTW, how long it takes to load and distribute to the miners the transactions?

        Depends on block size, latency, bandwidth. Each miner can probably figure out their own statistics for their particular operation.

        Block halving may have an effect yes.

        Interestingly though, increasing block size probably doesn't. (More fees yes, but higher chance of orphaning...) that would probably not always hold true though.

        Fast forward several halvings. Unless something is really rotten in the state of bitcoin, the number of transactions will be significantly higher.

        Suddenly the 'mine an empty block through fear of orphaning' problem starts to go away. Fees outweigh coinbase. So although your chance of orphaning is higher its the same for everyone because everyone wants the fees and the block reward is secondary.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: bjbear123 on February 04, 2016, 08:23:29 PM
        Devs will find a solution to this, The size of the blocks will NOT be what kills bitcoin


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: mavericklm on February 05, 2016, 06:22:33 AM
        Blocks are not full! It's a lie from those that want more control and/or more power over and in bitcoin!

        Average size of the blocks is around ~six hundred and a bit Kb! a bit over half of 1MB

        https://blockchain.info/block/00000000000000000418c10ffac9cbc03195dcf794e8dac3f656c932cb3c0008 notice the number of transactions!!!!!!!!
        This guys and other stupid fucks pool operators are messing with bitcoin system


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Amph on February 05, 2016, 08:33:27 AM
        Blocks are not full! It's a lie from those that want more control and/or more power over and in bitcoin!

        Average size of the blocks is around ~six hundred and a bit Kb! a bit over half of 1MB

        https://blockchain.info/block/00000000000000000418c10ffac9cbc03195dcf794e8dac3f656c932cb3c0008 notice the number of transactions!!!!!!!!
        This guys and other stupid fucks pool operators are messing with bitcoin system

        well it's not out of reality to think that each block will be full in the future, unless you want to say "fuck you" to the adoption

        it's true that there are some other solution instead of increase directly the block limit, but they do not come with any issue, also satoshi was for the increase as well


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: mavericklm on February 05, 2016, 09:25:48 AM
        I got no problem with bigger blocks, from the core devs! I got a problem with forks and shits from manipulators and saboteurs!

        ''Future'' might be in 5 or more years!

        As a miner i'm waiting for halving and the rising of transactions cost. Back in the ~2013 cost of transaction was .01btc


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Lauda on February 05, 2016, 10:09:56 AM
        I got no problem with bigger blocks, from the core devs! I got a problem with forks and shits from manipulators and saboteurs!
        Most of the people who are in support of such power grabs in BTCT or reddit have done nothing to contribute to Bitcoin; they don't hold many coins (if any at all) nor do they have a technical background. I've said this before; a 75% consensus threshold is a contentious HF that does not benefit the network. It rather harms it for the sake of attaining something that we don't even need yet.

        ''Future'' might be in 5 or more years!
        As a miner i'm waiting for halving and the rising of transactions cost. Back in the ~2013 cost of transaction was .01btc
        Many of them have no idea what we've been through and haven't been here long enough.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: sgbett on February 05, 2016, 10:41:33 AM
        I got no problem with bigger blocks, from the core devs! I got a problem with forks and shits from manipulators and saboteurs!
        Most of the people who are in support of such power grabs in BTCT or reddit have done nothing to contribute to Bitcoin; they don't hold many coins (if any at all) nor do they have a technical background. I've said this before; a 75% consensus threshold is a contentious HF that does not benefit the network. It rather harms it for the sake of attaining something that we don't even need yet.

        ''Future'' might be in 5 or more years!
        As a miner i'm waiting for halving and the rising of transactions cost. Back in the ~2013 cost of transaction was .01btc
        Many of them have no idea what we've been through and haven't been here long enough.

        They guy from April 2013 tells the guy from August 2014 that he can tell that there is manipulation and sabotage, he can tell from some of the pixels and having seen a few sabotages in his time!

        What does 'being here long enough' have to do with anything? Following that logic we should probably just do what they guy who was here longest said (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366), anyone else is just a manipulator and a saboteur.

        This length of time defining what your agenda is. Is it a sliding scale, or a black and white thing? Like if you have only been here 3 months are you 87% saboteur and 13% legit. Or is there a cutoff date, everyone after March 14th 2015 is a shill out to destroy bitcoin?

        No, I think I have it! Maybe its more like the Ballmer peak:

        https://i.imgur.com/lZRq2dk.png


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Lauda on February 05, 2016, 10:43:23 AM
        What does 'being here long enough' have to do with anything? Following that logic we should probably just do what they guy who was here longest said (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366), anyone else is just a manipulator and a saboteur.

        This length of time defining what your agenda is. Is it a sliding scale, or a black and white thing? Like if you have only been here 3 months are you 87% saboteur and 13% legit. Or is there a cutoff date, everyone after March 14th 2015 is a shill out to destroy bitcoin?
        This is the conclusion that you've just come to, on your own. I have never said such a thing nor assumed it. Nice to see what your subconscious is thinking about. One must learn to embrace the personal attacks though.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Cuidler on February 05, 2016, 10:58:17 AM
        Blocks are not full! It's a lie from those that want more control and/or more power over and in bitcoin!

        Average size of the blocks is around ~six hundred and a bit Kb! a bit over half of 1MB

        https://blockchain.info/block/00000000000000000418c10ffac9cbc03195dcf794e8dac3f656c932cb3c0008 notice the number of transactions!!!!!!!!
        This guys and other stupid fucks pool operators are messing with bitcoin system

        well it's not out of reality to think that each block will be full in the future, unless you want to say "fuck you" to the adoption

        it's true that there are some other solution instead of increase directly the block limit, but they do not come with any issue, also satoshi was for the increase as well


        Wel its those untechnical people who cant understand why you cant have every Blocks close to 1 MB, and why some blocks are empty.

        Also there are peak times with high usage when users suffers unecessary waiting for confirmation already - not good for any business, not good for Bitcoin either.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Matias on February 05, 2016, 11:12:51 AM

        Wel its those untechnical people who cant understand why you cant have every Blocks close to 1 MB, and why some blocks are empty.

         .

        I may very well belong to those untechnical, but to may understanding some blocks are empty, because some pools decide to distribute work that way.

        Some pools never mine empty blocks (e.g.) Kano.is.

        Every block has plenty of transactions

        https://kano.is/index.php?k=blocks



        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Amph on February 05, 2016, 11:47:55 AM
        I got no problem with bigger blocks, from the core devs! I got a problem with forks and shits from manipulators and saboteurs!

        ''Future'' might be in 5 or more years!

        As a miner i'm waiting for halving and the rising of transactions cost. Back in the ~2013 cost of transaction was .01btc

        well you must fork to apply the next change, be it soft or hard fork, you need to do it

        there was a thread asking why it's not simply possible to soft fork with a simple capacity increase, since it is only a simple change in the code, from 1 to 2mb...


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: ekoice on February 05, 2016, 12:18:47 PM
        I got no problem with bigger blocks, from the core devs! I got a problem with forks and shits from manipulators and saboteurs!

        ''Future'' might be in 5 or more years!

        As a miner i'm waiting for halving and the rising of transactions cost. Back in the ~2013 cost of transaction was .01btc

        I wish and pray when we all hear that Blocks are opened for every one since it makes no sense to keep Blocks Full and restrcted for longer time without increasing their size. Manipulation no way is acceptable in any sphere of life including BTC and pray BTC would be in safe hands always to give away more opportunities to all others.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: fenican on February 05, 2016, 12:30:02 PM
        Full blocks are no big deal - just increase the fee to a reasonable level and your transaction should go through no problem.

        The problem with Bitcoin is that the network has become VERY expensive to maintain and is borderline unprofitable for most miners. As a result, nearly all the mining has been concentrated in China where space and power are cheap.

        It is very unrealistic to assume that the price of Bitcoin will just increase arbitrarily to ensure miners stay profitable. That assumes a continuous increase in the number of investors who horde the coin. With prices down from a peak of $1000+ to under $400, many prospective investors got cold feet and it can easily be argued that the long term trend is now down not up. If BTC is used primarily for transactions the price could fall back to $100, or $40, or $5. There is really no floor.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: sgbett on February 05, 2016, 02:40:14 PM
        What does 'being here long enough' have to do with anything? Following that logic we should probably just do what they guy who was here longest said (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366), anyone else is just a manipulator and a saboteur.

        This length of time defining what your agenda is. Is it a sliding scale, or a black and white thing? Like if you have only been here 3 months are you 87% saboteur and 13% legit. Or is there a cutoff date, everyone after March 14th 2015 is a shill out to destroy bitcoin?
        This is the conclusion that you've just come to, on your own. I have never said such a thing nor assumed it. Nice to see what your subconscious is thinking about. One must learn to embrace the personal attacks though.

        I didn't *subconsciously* poke fun at the 'manipulator and saboteur' story, it was wholly intentional. Ridiculous hyperbole can't be responded to seriously, that would be feeding the trolls.

        I concluded nothing about your statement "Many of them have no idea what we've been through and haven't been here long enough. "

        You didn't say anything about what it actually means, so I ran with your inference asked a series of questions!

        If those questions upset you then I am very sorry.

        However, if you didn't even laugh a bit at the graph then I'm afraid you may have a terminal case of 'taking yourself too seriously'!

        OH GOD ANOTHER ATTACK SAVE US

        have at it. I am wearing a silly hat after all.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: SebastianJu on February 05, 2016, 07:25:55 PM
        What do you think, will Antpool stop mining blocks with 0 transactions after block reward halving?

        Here is again block with zero transactions

        https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000000082c86f9a810bc6d0ec540e76360b59587a460b9706c01df

        There are worth of 0.71 TX fees waiting for collecting, so it is crazy to leave money on the table.

        https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions

        0.71 is 2.8% of 25 which is what they get for mining block reward.

        There is a delay between knowing a block has been mined (that you can build on) and knowing which transactions were in that block.

        If you are able to find a block in that time, then you would have to be > 97.2% sure that you could hang around whilst you dump the transactions still in your mempool that were mined in the previous block, and fill up your just found block with the most profitable ones, before somebody else found a block.

        You have 100% chance of getting 25BTC - your EV is 25BTC
        You want a > 97.2% chance of not being beaten to get your EV over 25

        Over thousands of blocks that could add up to a reasonable amount, but you would then have to weigh that against the cost of implementing something that figures out whether its worthwhile by calculating orphan rates, and the risks associated with that (variance/reliability).

        Or you could just throw out an empty block and take the 25BTC off the table. Knowing that the other 0.71 BTC are still on the table, and so you still have a chance to at getting them anyway by mining the next block (which you have a minor advantage to get as you solved the last block)

        Though SPV Mining only has a small advantage in time. There was an experiment i have read about that used Mikes Network, or whatever it is named, to check out if SPV-Mining is needed to prevent you block being orphaned. Matts network is a relay network that propagates new found blocks in a very short time to many big nodes. So reaching 50% as fast as possible.

        Turned out that system was faster than SPV mining.

        Don't know anymore where i have read that.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: SebastianJu on February 05, 2016, 07:40:38 PM
        Full blocks are no big deal - just increase the fee to a reasonable level and your transaction should go through no problem.

        Sorry i can't let these statements stand this way.

        Just increase the fee and your transaction goes through. But don't you realize that this means that at the end of the line legit users, who paid legit fees, will be pushed out and never implemented too at one point in time? The higher the amount of transactions that want to be included the higher the fee. And that means you sending a transaction will never be sure that you added enough fee. All the others might have thought that a higher fee is needed already. And you are out.

        Surely that is very bad for bitcoin. Imagine using your bank, doing a bank wire and then you have to wait three days. Only then you know if your transaction went through or not. That is a plain stupid payment system and users will run away in masses.

        Well... it would solve the problem, less users more space in blocks.  ;D

        The problem with Bitcoin is that the network has become VERY expensive to maintain and is borderline unprofitable for most miners. As a result, nearly all the mining has been concentrated in China where space and power are cheap.

        What are you speaking about? It did not get more expensive in that way, it is too profitable. So that more and more miners want to have their share of the rewards. Some months ago we already had a network that was 100 times more secure than needed. Which means you easily could drop 99% of all mining hashrate and bitcoin still would be secure. And oh wonder, what do you think how rewarding mining would be for the 1%?

        It did not get more expensive. Only too many want to play with it. Simple market rules.

        By the way... giving out these high rewards make the network a huge mess for power consumption. There was a study some months ago that claimed that one regular bitcoin transaction consumes as much electricity like 1.75 average US households use in one day. 1!!! normal transaction. Bigger transactions eat even more.

        Again, this shows we have way way too many miners. And we have too many miners because mining is way too rewarding.

        That the one who can produce miners the most cheap has an advantage is clear too.

        It is very unrealistic to assume that the price of Bitcoin will just increase arbitrarily to ensure miners stay profitable. That assumes a continuous increase in the number of investors who horde the coin. With prices down from a peak of $1000+ to under $400, many prospective investors got cold feet and it can easily be argued that the long term trend is now down not up. If BTC is used primarily for transactions the price could fall back to $100, or $40, or $5. There is really no floor.

        There is no right for miners to stay profitable. What do you think will happen when we pay double the fee now? Simply more miner will find that mining is profitable and they will fill up. Mining is expensive again.

        Sorry, higher rewards is no solution at all.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: aarons6 on February 05, 2016, 08:09:34 PM
        Full blocks are no big deal - just increase the fee to a reasonable level and your transaction should go through no problem.


        the biggest problem is one simply cannot just increase the fee. once you send the bitcoin with whatever fee you decided, if you find out its not enough you are screwed.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: PakistanHockeyfan on February 06, 2016, 12:00:01 AM
        The blocks are not exactly full.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Alley on February 06, 2016, 12:21:40 AM
        Many miners still use the soft cap which is like 720kb.  So that's considered a full block.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: jonald_fyookball on February 06, 2016, 03:10:29 AM
        Full blocks are no big deal - just increase the fee to a reasonable level and your transaction should go through no problem.

        The problem with Bitcoin is that the network has become VERY expensive to maintain and is borderline unprofitable for most miners. As a result, nearly all the mining has been concentrated in China where space and power are cheap.

        It is very unrealistic to assume that the price of Bitcoin will just increase arbitrarily to ensure miners stay profitable. That assumes a continuous increase in the number of investors who horde the coin. With prices down from a peak of $1000+ to under $400, many prospective investors got cold feet and it can easily be argued that the long term trend is now down not up. If BTC is used primarily for transactions the price could fall back to $100, or $40, or $5. There is really no floor.

        Sorry, but you're wrong on a few points here. 

        Increasing fees is not a substitute for increasing thoroughput.  And it never will be.

        Also, you don't seem to understand that miners will always be (marginally) profitable.
        Those that aren't profitable will stop mining.




        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Mastsetad on February 06, 2016, 03:56:04 PM
        Many miners still use the soft cap which is like 720kb.  So that's considered a full block.

        Do these miners have poor internet connections? It is very difficulty to find a balance between more transaction fees and orphan blocks.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: 2legit2 on February 06, 2016, 04:16:20 PM
        yeah they are full for a while already and people actually need to do something about it, i think the best would be to increase the block size limit


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: quadriple7 on February 06, 2016, 05:42:58 PM
        i think it is the only solutiuon is to increasce size limit.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: mavericklm on February 07, 2016, 07:11:14 AM
        https://blockchain.info/block/000000000000000006a501607938025b9b10c2e4c61db861ff1b03724fb09300

        some are ''full'', some are full of shit


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: aarons6 on February 07, 2016, 07:20:52 AM
        i think the best solution would be to code something in the core that rejects a block if it has no transactions.

        this way the pools that mine empty blocks get NO REWARDS.



        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: mavericklm on February 07, 2016, 08:20:45 AM
        +1


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Ruhtilg on February 07, 2016, 09:21:14 AM
        i think the best solution would be to code something in the core that rejects a block if it has no transactions.

        this way the pools that mine empty blocks get NO REWARDS.



        I agree with this proposal. The resource in bitcoin is limited, we have to use it properly.

        But what is the lowest limit of the acceptable block, 10 transactions or 50 transaction?


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: aarons6 on February 07, 2016, 09:33:17 AM
        i think the best solution would be to code something in the core that rejects a block if it has no transactions.

        this way the pools that mine empty blocks get NO REWARDS.



        I agree with this proposal. The resource in bitcoin is limited, we have to use it properly.

        But what is the lowest limit of the acceptable block, 10 transactions or 50 transaction?

        lol a whole new thing for the devs to argue about..

        but yeah, anything is better then zero.. its not fair for the pools to get rewards when they ignore transactions.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: mavericklm on February 07, 2016, 10:07:14 AM
        256kb or 128kb.....


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Lauda on February 07, 2016, 10:23:59 AM
        i think the best solution would be to code something in the core that rejects a block if it has no transactions.
        this way the pools that mine empty blocks get NO REWARDS.
        I agree with this proposal. The resource in bitcoin is limited, we have to use it properly.
        But what is the lowest limit of the acceptable block, 10 transactions or 50 transaction?
        What prevents them from creating a few transactions themselves to cheat the system?

        yeah they are full for a while already and people actually need to do something about it, i think the best would be to increase the block size limit
        The system is fine right now; even the mem pool is shrinking. Currently 1759.66796875 (KB).

        The blocks are not exactly full.
        Some are and some aren't; people are being hyperbolic about it.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Laosai on February 07, 2016, 10:29:55 AM
        i think the best solution would be to code something in the core that rejects a block if it has no transactions.

        this way the pools that mine empty blocks get NO REWARDS.



        Not a bad idea in itself, but they could just create 1 satoshi transactions to put in those blocks. Hence they wouldn't be empty anymore ^^

        What's could maybe help, would be to only allow to mine full blocks no?
        If only full (or let's say 80% full) blocks were minable, it would make transactions a bit slower but would also answer the size problem for now no?


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: bit-freedom on February 07, 2016, 10:36:08 AM
        i think the best solution would be to code something in the core that rejects a block if it has no transactions.

        this way the pools that mine empty blocks get NO REWARDS.



        Not a bad idea in itself, but they could just create 1 satoshi transactions to put in those blocks. Hence they wouldn't be empty anymore ^^

        What's could maybe help, would be to only allow to mine full blocks no?
        If only full (or let's say 80% full) blocks were minable, it would make transactions a bit slower but would also answer the size problem for now no?

        it's impossible adopt this solution and even is not democratic.
        there is a natural solution about a block empty... simply in the long time it will become more difficult find one and not insert some txs and the fee process will help in this process... all miners probably could be more interested in fee txs than block itself (fee > block reward)


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: bearexin on February 07, 2016, 10:40:39 AM
        I am not with increasing the block size, that was just a one-time incident and it's very rare for pools of transactions to accumulate like that, normally my even small transactions doesn't need more than one or two blocks to confirm. I think the current system already proved it's efficiency overtime. No need for a very big change currently.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: aarons6 on February 07, 2016, 10:47:33 AM
        i think the best solution would be to code something in the core that rejects a block if it has no transactions.

        this way the pools that mine empty blocks get NO REWARDS.



        Not a bad idea in itself, but they could just create 1 satoshi transactions to put in those blocks. Hence they wouldn't be empty anymore ^^

        What's could maybe help, would be to only allow to mine full blocks no?
        If only full (or let's say 80% full) blocks were minable, it would make transactions a bit slower but would also answer the size problem for now no?

        it's impossible adopt this solution and even is not democratic.
        there is a natural solution about a block empty... simply in the long time it will become more difficult find one and not insert some txs and the fee process will help in this process... all miners probably could be more interested in fee txs than block itself (fee > block reward)

        yes but the largest pools dont pay the fee to the miners.. so that means they have zero incentive to build large tx blocks.



        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: 1Referee on February 07, 2016, 10:53:13 AM
        I am not with increasing the block size, that was just a one-time incident and it's very rare for pools of transactions to accumulate like that, normally my even small transactions doesn't need more than one or two blocks to confirm. I think the current system already proved it's efficiency overtime. No need for a very big change currently.

        If a mega merchant as Amazon is accepting Bitcoin as payment option, then all blocks will be full nearly instantly. That might be a reason for them NOT to accept Bitcoin payments as 1MB is simply not enough. 2MB is what we need if we want to attract mega merchants.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: disclaimer201 on February 07, 2016, 11:02:27 AM
        I am not with increasing the block size, that was just a one-time incident and it's very rare for pools of transactions to accumulate like that, normally my even small transactions doesn't need more than one or two blocks to confirm. I think the current system already proved it's efficiency overtime. No need for a very big change currently.

        If a mega merchant as Amazon is accepting Bitcoin as payment option, then all blocks will be full nearly instantly. That might be a reason for them NOT to accept Bitcoin payments as 1MB is simply not enough. 2MB is what we need if we want to attract mega merchants.

        Agreed. I think that's why it isn't time for that step in bitcoin's evolution yet. We have to create the infrastructure first allowing a huge increase in fast transactions before Bitcoin will be considered as a payment option by market giants. I'm willing to wait until April/May to see if anything useful and realistic can come out of LN or whatever trick there is to allow more transactions. One thing is for sure: Bitcoin isn't ready for large fees at this point of its development!


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Laosai on February 07, 2016, 11:03:51 AM
        i think the best solution would be to code something in the core that rejects a block if it has no transactions.

        this way the pools that mine empty blocks get NO REWARDS.



        Not a bad idea in itself, but they could just create 1 satoshi transactions to put in those blocks. Hence they wouldn't be empty anymore ^^

        What's could maybe help, would be to only allow to mine full blocks no?
        If only full (or let's say 80% full) blocks were minable, it would make transactions a bit slower but would also answer the size problem for now no?

        it's impossible adopt this solution and even is not democratic.
        there is a natural solution about a block empty... simply in the long time it will become more difficult find one and not insert some txs and the fee process will help in this process... all miners probably could be more interested in fee txs than block itself (fee > block reward)

        Hmm... I don't understand, why wouldn't it be possible to implement such a solutions?
        Seems rather obvious to me that you can put limits to the system no?

        Maybe I miss some technical grasp about that though ^^'


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Learn007 on February 07, 2016, 12:38:02 PM
        yes the blocks are full, but it requires that all bitcoin software agrees on what the limit is, otherwise there would be several incompatible versions of bitcoin. it is a hot debate whether increasing the blocksize or not, and by how much and when is going to make bitcoin more centralized or decentralized, whether it is in the spirit of the original whitepaper, and generally whether it will help make bitcoin become a useful currency alternative to millions of people.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Matias on February 07, 2016, 01:28:18 PM
        i think the best solution would be to code something in the core that rejects a block if it has no transactions.

        this way the pools that mine empty blocks get NO REWARDS.



        Not a bad idea in itself, but they could just create 1 satoshi transactions to put in those blocks. Hence they wouldn't be empty anymore ^^

        What's could maybe help, would be to only allow to mine full blocks no?
        If only full (or let's say 80% full) blocks were minable, it would make transactions a bit slower but would also answer the size problem for now no?

        it's impossible adopt this solution and even is not democratic.
        there is a natural solution about a block empty... simply in the long time it will become more difficult find one and not insert some txs and the fee process will help in this process... all miners probably could be more interested in fee txs than block itself (fee > block reward)

        yes but the largest pools dont pay the fee to the miners.. so that means they have zero incentive to build large tx blocks.



        Isn't it exactly the opposite? When pool keeps TX fees to itself it has bigger incentive to build large tx blocks.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: AliceWonderMiscreations on February 07, 2016, 02:32:59 PM
        rejecting empty blocks is bad.

        Besides it isn't enforceable. All a miner has to do is create transactions from addresses they control to addresses they control. The transaction only exists in their block, so it doesn't even cost them a tx fee if they don't win the block.

        As the block reward goes down, empty blocks will be a problem that takes care of itself anyway.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Mastsetad on February 08, 2016, 08:29:33 PM
        rejecting empty blocks is bad.

        Besides it isn't enforceable. All a miner has to do is create transactions from addresses they control to addresses they control. The transaction only exists in their block, so it doesn't even cost them a tx fee if they don't win the block.

        As the block reward goes down, empty blocks will be a problem that takes care of itself anyway.

        Yes, when the block reward is smaller, the transaction fee becomes larger, so the pool will create larger blocks.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: SebastianJu on February 09, 2016, 12:15:30 AM
        I am not with increasing the block size, that was just a one-time incident and it's very rare for pools of transactions to accumulate like that, normally my even small transactions doesn't need more than one or two blocks to confirm. I think the current system already proved it's efficiency overtime. No need for a very big change currently.

        If a mega merchant as Amazon is accepting Bitcoin as payment option, then all blocks will be full nearly instantly. That might be a reason for them NOT to accept Bitcoin payments as 1MB is simply not enough. 2MB is what we need if we want to attract mega merchants.

        Exactly... the risk for big companies like amazon would be way too high that they can not use it after developing it.

        But you know what... those who say 1mb is sufficient claim that bitcoin was never intended to be used by amazon. Bitcoin is only a high amount transfer system for the rich. Didn't you know that? ::)


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: SebastianJu on February 09, 2016, 12:20:49 AM
        i think the best solution would be to code something in the core that rejects a block if it has no transactions.

        this way the pools that mine empty blocks get NO REWARDS.



        Not a bad idea in itself, but they could just create 1 satoshi transactions to put in those blocks. Hence they wouldn't be empty anymore ^^

        What's could maybe help, would be to only allow to mine full blocks no?
        If only full (or let's say 80% full) blocks were minable, it would make transactions a bit slower but would also answer the size problem for now no?

        it's impossible adopt this solution and even is not democratic.
        there is a natural solution about a block empty... simply in the long time it will become more difficult find one and not insert some txs and the fee process will help in this process... all miners probably could be more interested in fee txs than block itself (fee > block reward)

        Hmm... I don't understand, why wouldn't it be possible to implement such a solutions?
        Seems rather obvious to me that you can put limits to the system no?

        Maybe I miss some technical grasp about that though ^^'

        He means that this problem will solve from itself once the block halving happened often enough. Then the fees for a block will be a bigger part of the reward for finding a block and no pool can include no transactions anymore.



        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Mastsetad on February 09, 2016, 11:44:37 AM
        He means that this problem will solve from itself once the block halving happened often enough. Then the fees for a block will be a bigger part of the reward for finding a block and no pool can include no transactions anymore.

        When the internet speed is very fast for all the miners, the benefit of smaller bock (fast block relay speed) will diminish. All of them will include more transactions.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: SebastianJu on February 09, 2016, 06:20:33 PM
        He means that this problem will solve from itself once the block halving happened often enough. Then the fees for a block will be a bigger part of the reward for finding a block and no pool can include no transactions anymore.

        When the internet speed is very fast for all the miners, the benefit of smaller bock (fast block relay speed) will diminish. All of them will include more transactions.

        It's not only the internet speed. The network, which means all of the miners, have to verify blocks and the bigger the blocks the higher the time needed to verify them. Which means bigger blocks need more time to confirm.

        I thinke the best way to solve this is more transactions, so higher fee and dropping block reward.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: mickiya on February 10, 2016, 10:24:49 AM
        He means that this problem will solve from itself once the block halving happened often enough. Then the fees for a block will be a bigger part of the reward for finding a block and no pool can include no transactions anymore.

        When the internet speed is very fast for all the miners, the benefit of smaller bock (fast block relay speed) will diminish. All of them will include more transactions.

        It's not only the internet speed. The network, which means all of the miners, have to verify blocks and the bigger the blocks the higher the time needed to verify them. Which means bigger blocks need more time to confirm.

        I thinke the best way to solve this is more transactions, so higher fee and dropping block reward.

        Does it mean we have to have fast CPU or powerful computer to do that? Is that required for ordinary Core wallet holders?


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Lauda on February 10, 2016, 10:44:10 AM
        Does it mean we have to have fast CPU or powerful computer to do that? Is that required for ordinary Core wallet holders?
        Define 'ordinary Core wallet holders'? If you are using Bitcoin Core, then you need to sync up with the network in order to send out/see received transactions. However, unless you're running full nodes you don't really need to bother yourself with the requirements.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Mastsetad on February 10, 2016, 12:41:46 PM
        Does it mean we have to have fast CPU or powerful computer to do that? Is that required for ordinary Core wallet holders?
        Define 'ordinary Core wallet holders'? If you are using Bitcoin Core, then you need to sync up with the network in order to send out/see received transactions. However, unless you're running full nodes you don't really need to bother yourself with the requirements.

        I run the Bitcoin Core, with all the default settings. Am I classified as a full node user? I have low end CPU.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Matias on February 10, 2016, 01:22:36 PM
        My PC is bought few years ago, so it is surely low end. I run full node. Bitcoin core takes less than 1% of cpu and bandwith.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Lauda on February 10, 2016, 01:49:54 PM
        I run the Bitcoin Core, with all the default settings. Am I classified as a full node user? I have low end CPU.
        Technically yes. There's good information on Bitcoin.org in regards to full nodes (https://bitcoin.org/en/full-node#what-is-a-full-node). Albeit if you don't forward port 8333 and run it constantly you don't really have a full node.

        My PC is bought few years ago, so it is surely low end. I run full node. Bitcoin core takes less than 1% of cpu and bandwith.
        The age of a PC does not really tell us anything. How about you share the specifications?


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Matias on February 10, 2016, 01:54:45 PM
        I run the Bitcoin Core, with all the default settings. Am I classified as a full node user? I have low end CPU.
        Technically yes. There's good information on Bitcoin.org in regards to full nodes (https://bitcoin.org/en/full-node#what-is-a-full-node). Albeit if you don't forward port 8333 and run it constantly you don't really have a full node.

        My PC is bought few years ago, so it is surely low end. I run full node. Bitcoin core takes less than 1% of cpu and bandwith.
        The age of a PC does not really tell us anything. How about you share the specifications?

        I'll do it when I get back home (I don't remember them by heart). But it wasn't any high end machine even when I bought it.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Edwardard on February 11, 2016, 08:35:32 AM
        I run the Bitcoin Core, with all the default settings. Am I classified as a full node user? I have low end CPU.
        Technically yes. There's good information on Bitcoin.org in regards to full nodes (https://bitcoin.org/en/full-node#what-is-a-full-node). Albeit if you don't forward port 8333 and run it constantly you don't really have a full node.

        My PC is bought few years ago, so it is surely low end. I run full node. Bitcoin core takes less than 1% of cpu and bandwith.
        The age of a PC does not really tell us anything. How about you share the specifications?

        I have the Intel CPU G1610. I used it to mine as well as run Bitcoin Core. I do not see any problem.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: SebastianJu on February 12, 2016, 08:24:28 PM
        He means that this problem will solve from itself once the block halving happened often enough. Then the fees for a block will be a bigger part of the reward for finding a block and no pool can include no transactions anymore.

        When the internet speed is very fast for all the miners, the benefit of smaller bock (fast block relay speed) will diminish. All of them will include more transactions.

        It's not only the internet speed. The network, which means all of the miners, have to verify blocks and the bigger the blocks the higher the time needed to verify them. Which means bigger blocks need more time to confirm.

        I thinke the best way to solve this is more transactions, so higher fee and dropping block reward.

        Does it mean we have to have fast CPU or powerful computer to do that? Is that required for ordinary Core wallet holders?

        Even if you would run a full node, 2 MB are far away from any need to upgrade your cpu or something. It's one block in average each 10 minutes. That can be very easily handle by practically every computer nowadays.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Cryptology on March 01, 2016, 06:14:42 PM
        The correct statement is 'some blocks are full'. You can't just jump to conclusions based on data recovered in the last few hours. Out of the last few blocks I see a few at around 750kb.

        It is frustrating how much energy is being wasted.  Just scale the blocksize  already...
        That can be a dangerous act.

        i have not been into all this bitcoin stuff for so long , but from all i read so far , i cant realy see why so much people are hating on bigger block sizes. Becuse all i can see and hear right now is that bitcoins would benfit from it a great deal.
        Because you have no IT background and have not done adequate research. How could you jump to such conclusions? With a block size of 2 MB it is possible to construct a transaction that would take over 10 minutes to validate which would harm the network.

        Is it correct to say that blocks are full now?


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: BitUsher on March 01, 2016, 07:26:54 PM
        The correct statement is 'some blocks are full'. You can't just jump to conclusions based on data recovered in the last few hours. Out of the last few blocks I see a few at around 750kb.

        It is frustrating how much energy is being wasted.  Just scale the blocksize  already...
        That can be a dangerous act.

        i have not been into all this bitcoin stuff for so long , but from all i read so far , i cant realy see why so much people are hating on bigger block sizes. Becuse all i can see and hear right now is that bitcoins would benfit from it a great deal.
        Because you have no IT background and have not done adequate research. How could you jump to such conclusions? With a block size of 2 MB it is possible to construct a transaction that would take over 10 minutes to validate which would harm the network.

        Is it correct to say that blocks are full now?

        Yes , Appears to be a spam attack. Users are suggested to pay 2-4 pennies usd more per tx (most wallets automatically adjust these days) to insure their txs immediately get in the next block. Here are some beautiful pictures of the culprits --


        https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cb8wSQdW4AA_aPA.jpg


        https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cb8VUDRWwAAFW5b.jpg

        Look at how they differ from other tx's visually represented in the background.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Lauda on March 01, 2016, 08:03:35 PM
        Is it correct to say that blocks are full now?
        Full because of natural growth? No. Full because of an on-going spam attack that created a huge backlog? Yes.
        https://i.imgur.com/efEIJ61.png
        https://i.imgur.com/szx5T32.png

        It is pretty clear that somebody is doing this on purpose.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Dissonance on March 01, 2016, 08:13:09 PM
        How long can they keep this up ?


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: BitUsher on March 01, 2016, 08:16:38 PM
        How long can they keep this up ?

        It is costing them a least 5-10k a day... so depends on how deep their pockets are. Normal users with a proper wallet that adjusts fees dynamically are unaffected . My txs have been getting through in the immediate block with fees ranging from 5 - 11 pennies per tx.

        It will be fun to see this attack persist if it is funded large bank or government and watch as they both spur the adoption of segwit in April and run up millions of dollars in fees.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Cryptology on March 01, 2016, 08:26:41 PM
        It is pretty clear that somebody is doing this on purpose.

        Agreed. That data points in that direction. In any case for an average bitcoin user it really doesn't matter why block are full.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: BitUsher on March 01, 2016, 08:43:31 PM
        It is pretty clear that somebody is doing this on purpose.

        Agreed. That data points in that direction. In any case for an average bitcoin user it really doesn't matter why block are full.


        Its a good thing most modern wallets dynamically adjust fees automatically in real time... There are a fee stranglers that need to be updated though.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Windpower on March 01, 2016, 08:50:16 PM
        He means that this problem will solve from itself once the block halving happened often enough. Then the fees for a block will be a bigger part of the reward for finding a block and no pool can include no transactions anymore.

        When the internet speed is very fast for all the miners, the benefit of smaller bock (fast block relay speed) will diminish. All of them will include more transactions.

        It's not only the internet speed. The network, which means all of the miners, have to verify blocks and the bigger the blocks the higher the time needed to verify them. Which means bigger blocks need more time to confirm.

        I thinke the best way to solve this is more transactions, so higher fee and dropping block reward.
        So pretty much even if we raise the block size, it is going to do nothing. Wow. Why is everyone making a fuss over it then?


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: AliceWonderMiscreations on March 02, 2016, 02:32:10 AM
        I am not with increasing the block size, that was just a one-time incident and it's very rare for pools of transactions to accumulate like that, normally my even small transactions doesn't need more than one or two blocks to confirm. I think the current system already proved it's efficiency overtime. No need for a very big change currently.

        If a mega merchant as Amazon is accepting Bitcoin as payment option, then all blocks will be full nearly instantly. That might be a reason for them NOT to accept Bitcoin payments as 1MB is simply not enough. 2MB is what we need if we want to attract mega merchants.

        Exactly... the risk for big companies like amazon would be way too high that they can not use it after developing it.

        If Amazon accepted bitcoin most people would still use credit cards, just like most people buying from newegg use credit card.

        Before Amazon's volume could grow large enough for there to be a serious blockchain problem, your typical Tom Dick and Harry would have to own bitcoin and choose to spend it, and that's years away.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: SebastianJu on March 02, 2016, 02:46:39 AM
        Cryptology


        It is pretty clear that somebody is doing this on purpose.

        Agreed. That data points in that direction. In any case for an average bitcoin user it really doesn't matter why block are full.

        Unfortunately this is not really true. I got a number of people complaining about transactions not going through because they chose a standard fee of some kind. Looks like there are enough wallets out there that still can't deal with spam attacks.



        Windpower


        So pretty much even if we raise the block size, it is going to do nothing. Wow. Why is everyone making a fuss over it then?

        Some fear that it will be the first step only and have nightmares of much bigger blocks and that then someone could not run a node anymore.

        Others explicitely don't want it because they want a fee market. Which means alot higher fees. They have the impression that bitcoin is a network for high amount transfers and that all small transfers are spam only.

        Well, then there is the accusation that some of them do this only to promote lightning network. Which is practically using another network instead using bitcoin directly. Can't say that I give that idea much chances. Bitcoiners will be hard to convince.

        And some others say that we first should implement SegWit. Which is a good thing but will get to it's borders relatively fast too. It can not help for very long.



        AliceWonderMiscreations


        If Amazon accepted bitcoin most people would still use credit cards, just like most people buying from newegg use credit card.

        Before Amazon's volume could grow large enough for there to be a serious blockchain problem, your typical Tom Dick and Harry would have to own bitcoin and choose to spend it, and that's years away.

        Sure, amazon would probably avoid advertising this. Though even the community might already put pressure on the network only by realizing the chances showing up with amazon adopting.

        Though if the would advertise situation could change fast.

        It's a very theoretical question anyway. No serious business would invest now in something bitcoin related. With all the news of apocalypse because of forks, non working bitcoin transactions, fights in the community and and and. Nobody invests into such an unstable area.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: RealBitcoin on March 02, 2016, 02:50:15 AM
        Is it correct to say that blocks are full now?
        Full because of natural growth? No. Full because of an on-going spam attack that created a huge backlog? Yes.
        https://i.imgur.com/efEIJ61.png
        https://i.imgur.com/szx5T32.png

        It is pretty clear that somebody is doing this on purpose.

        Another 'network durability stress test' a.k.a 'ddos' a.k.a 'spam' a.k.a 'butthurt bitcoin classic users' ?


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: SebastianJu on March 02, 2016, 02:56:51 AM
        Is it correct to say that blocks are full now?
        Full because of natural growth? No. Full because of an on-going spam attack that created a huge backlog? Yes.
        https://i.imgur.com/efEIJ61.png
        https://i.imgur.com/szx5T32.png

        It is pretty clear that somebody is doing this on purpose.

        Another 'network durability stress test' a.k.a 'ddos' a.k.a 'spam' a.k.a 'butthurt bitcoin classic users' ?

        Well, then that/these person(s) have deep pockets I guess. I wonder who could think that this is a good investment at all.

        Besides, wasn't there a pretty cheap way to spam with some metainformations? Though when this attack really is so expensive... dunno. Doesn't sound smart in any way.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: RealBitcoin on March 02, 2016, 03:00:04 AM

        Well, then that/these person(s) have deep pockets I guess. I wonder who could think that this is a good investment at all.

        Besides, wasn't there a pretty cheap way to spam with some metainformations? Though when this attack really is so expensive... dunno. Doesn't sound smart in any way.

        Well there was some big institution behind it that is clear, maybe some jealous bank sponsored it? Who knows.

        It looks like it's over, the TX/S shrunk to half since when I checked last time a few hours ago, and the unconfirmed ones as well.

        And now the mempool is starting to shrink again back to normal levels.


        People need to get used to these stuffs, it will happen many more times, and we cant let this shit destroy our community.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: nicked on March 02, 2016, 03:01:23 AM
        I'm just your "average Joe", and me and all of my average Joe friends, and all of the rest of the average Joe's out there are not going to use bitcoin if it takes more than ten minutes for a transaction and high fees will soon price alot of people out.  Those are the cold hard facts. You can kiss the fabled "mainstream adoption" goodbye.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: RealBitcoin on March 02, 2016, 03:04:51 AM
        I'm just your "average Joe", and me and all of my average Joe friends, and all of the rest of the average Joe's out there are not going to use bitcoin if it takes more than ten minutes for a transaction and high fees will soon price alot of people out.  Those are the cold hard facts. You can kiss the fabled "mainstream adoption" goodbye.

        Nope, these attacks are not net positive.

        How many people join bitcoin in a day? 5000-6000 tops?

        Well, by doing an attack this scale probably worth millions of $$ to do, actually they are donating that money away to miners and it benefits existing users more than what we would lose over that 5000 people not joining.

        So the bottom line:  Attacking the bitcoin network is always a net loss for the attacker and a net win for the network.


        Not to mention it helps developers give them new ideas to protect the network with, which can be used for defense against future larger scale attacks.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Eodguy149 on March 02, 2016, 03:06:29 AM
        I'm just your "average Joe", and me and all of my average Joe friends, and all of the rest of the average Joe's out there are not going to use bitcoin if it takes more than ten minutes for a transaction and high fees will soon price alot of people out.  Those are the cold hard facts. You can kiss the fabled "mainstream adoption" goodbye.

        I tend to agree with this logic. The development of an ever increasing fee market due to the block size constraint is the first time I've ever really been concerned for Bitcoin. It was originally developed as a peer to peer digital currency but that is slowly being changed. I'm not sure why individuals suddenly believe it should just be a settlement network. I'm not overly happy with core's current roadmap, if something isn't done Bitcoin will lose a lot of the qualities that made it so unique and exciting.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: SebastianJu on March 02, 2016, 03:13:34 AM

        Well, then that/these person(s) have deep pockets I guess. I wonder who could think that this is a good investment at all.

        Besides, wasn't there a pretty cheap way to spam with some metainformations? Though when this attack really is so expensive... dunno. Doesn't sound smart in any way.

        Well there was some big institution behind it that is clear, maybe some jealous bank sponsored it? Who knows.

        It looks like it's over, the TX/S shrunk to half since when I checked last time a few hours ago, and the unconfirmed ones as well.

        And now the mempool is starting to shrink again back to normal levels.


        People need to get used to these stuffs, it will happen many more times, and we cant let this shit destroy our community.

        Good to hear that it ends. Everytime it happens it brings up a lot of complaints. The forum get filled with it then. And surely that is nothing that will help bitcoin.

        I'm really not sure about banks doing that. It would be a huge expense they would have to justify to their shareholders. Which will be too hard I think.

        Besides that, they would fight the lightning network, which in my opinion, has the higher chance to transform bitcoin into a bank system similar to what satoshi wanted to get free from. I mean if it really ends so that the fees are very high then the solution will be that bitcoiners don't ever touch bitcoins anymore. Everything is dealt with in the lightning network then. Exchanges will accept fiat directly and bitcoiners never will see actual bitcoins. Safes alot of fees.

        And those that can pay the bitcoin fees... well, who will it be? Big companies and banks. So that future holds a lot of risks to bitcoin. Ok, it might not get this worse but at the moment I don't see that there is something in the way of that development.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: nicked on March 02, 2016, 03:32:20 AM
        I'm just your "average Joe", and me and all of my average Joe friends, and all of the rest of the average Joe's out there are not going to use bitcoin if it takes more than ten minutes for a transaction and high fees will soon price alot of people out.  Those are the cold hard facts. You can kiss the fabled "mainstream adoption" goodbye.

        Nope, these attacks are not net positive.

        How many people join bitcoin in a day? 5000-6000 tops?

        Well, by doing an attack this scale probably worth millions of $$ to do, actually they are donating that money away to miners and it benefits existing users more than what we would lose over that 5000 people not joining.

        So the bottom line:  Attacking the bitcoin network is always a net loss for the attacker and a net win for the network.


        Not to mention it helps developers give them new ideas to protect the network with, which can be used for defense against future larger scale attacks.
        I don't think this is an attack or spam. This is just regular transactions that have what used to be regular fees, that aren't getting confirmed because there is not enough room in the blocks for them all. Raising fees won't fix that. Only a block size increase will do that.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: aarons6 on March 02, 2016, 03:53:22 AM
        I am not with increasing the block size, that was just a one-time incident and it's very rare for pools of transactions to accumulate like that, normally my even small transactions doesn't need more than one or two blocks to confirm. I think the current system already proved it's efficiency overtime. No need for a very big change currently.

        If a mega merchant as Amazon is accepting Bitcoin as payment option, then all blocks will be full nearly instantly. That might be a reason for them NOT to accept Bitcoin payments as 1MB is simply not enough. 2MB is what we need if we want to attract mega merchants.

        Exactly... the risk for big companies like amazon would be way too high that they can not use it after developing it.

        If Amazon accepted bitcoin most people would still use credit cards, just like most people buying from newegg use credit card.

        Before Amazon's volume could grow large enough for there to be a serious blockchain problem, your typical Tom Dick and Harry would have to own bitcoin and choose to spend it, and that's years away.

        you do know you can buy things on amazon with bitcoin, through purse.io.

        just make sure to enable 2fa if you keep bitcoin on that site.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Lauda on March 02, 2016, 06:47:28 AM
        Another 'network durability stress test' a.k.a 'ddos' a.k.a 'spam' a.k.a 'butthurt bitcoin classic users' ?
        Correct. Didn't you notice the shills saying that we need a 2 MB block size limit and that people should run Classic or BU?

        Agreed. That data points in that direction. In any case for an average bitcoin user it really doesn't matter why block are full.
        It shouldn't matter and they should practice sending with proper fees so that in the future they are unaffected (currently only some are due to lower fees).

        you do know you can buy things on amazon with bitcoin, through purse.io.
        That's not the same as directly accepting Bitcoin.

        I don't think this is an attack or spam. This is just regular transactions that have what used to be regular fees, that aren't getting confirmed because there is not enough room in the blocks for them all. Raising fees won't fix that. Only a block size increase will do that.
        No. This is completely wrong. Did you even take a look at any graphics provided by me or someone else? Please read before posting.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: SebastianJu on March 02, 2016, 09:05:29 AM
        nicked


        I don't think this is an attack or spam. This is just regular transactions that have what used to be regular fees, that aren't getting confirmed because there is not enough room in the blocks for them all. Raising fees won't fix that. Only a block size increase will do that.

        SegWit will help too to some extent. It's only unfortunate that, till it kicks in, bitcoin might get a bad reputation as unreliable and slow. Since normal users without automatically adjusted fee don't care or want to investigate the reason. It doesn't work. That's it.

        Besides, it looks like a spam but the limits show up on certain times of the day often enough too so that confusion comes up. This will get only worse until a solution of some kind is implemented. And it does not really look like we get a solution tomorrow.



        Lauda


        I wonder what you will do when you realize that the "proper fee" will rise exponentially. It is unavoidable that this happens without some solution coming through and kicking in fast. I wonder how fast SegWit will change the situation once implemented. It might take it's time too.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: arlene05973 on March 02, 2016, 09:11:14 AM
        Right now Bitcoin's price is rallying and block are full. According to blockchain.info backlog of unconfirmed transactions is 11.6 MB right now and as far as I know there is now spam or stress test going on. How worse does it need to get?



        ........rallying and block are full.....

        Pls, i'm sorry asking this for the second time. how does this affect the seller's or a buyer's?


        Thanks


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: RealBitcoin on March 02, 2016, 09:26:12 AM

        Correct. Didn't you notice the shills saying that we need a 2 MB block size limit and that people should run Classic or BU?


        Hard to tell who is shill and who is not on this forum, and on reddit.

        But I saw real shills on btc classic youtube videos, and +30 upvotes on shill coments when the whole video had less than 100 likes.

        Whoever runs this shill campaign has planned it very well, because they are promoting it on every front.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: SebastianJu on March 02, 2016, 09:34:26 AM
        arlene05973


        ........rallying and block are full.....

        Pls, i'm sorry asking this for the second time. how does this affect the seller's or a buyer's?


        Thanks

        It affects them so that bitcoin transactions with a standard fee might not get a confirmation for hours or even days.

        So they would need to know about it to adjust the fee, they would need to use a wallet that does adjust the fee automatically or they would need to wait.

        So the downside is that they pay more, not much more at the current time, or they would have a deal that can draw over a long time because no confirmation happens.



        RealBitcoin



        Correct. Didn't you notice the shills saying that we need a 2 MB block size limit and that people should run Classic or BU?


        Hard to tell who is shill and who is not on this forum, and on reddit.

        But I saw real shills on btc classic youtube videos, and +30 upvotes on shill coments when the whole video had less than 100 likes.

        Whoever runs this shill campaign has planned it very well, because they are promoting it on every front.

        I think it does not really need a shill army for that to happen. The only thing needed would be fans of he idea and a community that video was posted in right after release. For sure many of the viewers would upvote the vide.

        Doesn't really mean that they have to be paid supporters or sockpuppet accounts. Of course it is possible that they are.

        Well, I'm pretty sick of this political war. Emotions are heated up so much often that argumenting in a civilized manner becomes hard and tiring.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: tn211 on March 02, 2016, 10:30:18 AM
        Well this problem was about to happen and i honestly don't understand why it's still a problem. How hard can it be to find a consensus in this story?
        Wasn't the bitcoin community united?
        Isn't bitcoin build cutting edge technology where we can vote to force a consensus?


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Lauda on March 02, 2016, 10:32:49 AM
        Hard to tell who is shill and who is not on this forum, and on reddit.
        Actually it isn't. It depends on how much interaction you've had and how much reading you've done in these threads. Users that fail to listen to reason, that try spreading false information and FUD against Core constantly (even though they've been corrected several times) are really obvious (as an example).

        Whoever runs this shill campaign has planned it very well, because they are promoting it on every front.
        It is best to stay away from places such as r/btc. You would only waste your time there.

        Isn't bitcoin build cutting edge technology where we can vote to force a consensus?
        You can't technically force anything; that's the point of Bitcoin (you've confused it with something). Bitcoin requires consensus.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: SebastianJu on March 02, 2016, 11:21:31 AM
        Well this problem was about to happen and i honestly don't understand why it's still a problem. How hard can it be to find a consensus in this story?
        Wasn't the bitcoin community united?
        Isn't bitcoin build cutting edge technology where we can vote to force a consensus?

        The community was united until now... unfortunately. It all ended when the 1mb blocksize limit was met. Something that was only implemented as a temporary spam prevention measure. Now it is held up as a basic rule of the protocol, like 21 million cap or 10 minutes blocks.

        Voting at the moment could only work with a hard fork because community is so divided. And that sounds like it would be a nasty battle. I really don't like thinking about it.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: RealBitcoin on March 02, 2016, 06:21:26 PM
        I think it does not really need a shill army for that to happen. The only thing needed would be fans of he idea and a community that video was posted in right after release. For sure many of the viewers would upvote the vide.

        Doesn't really mean that they have to be paid supporters or sockpuppet accounts. Of course it is possible that they are.

        Well, I'm pretty sick of this political war. Emotions are heated up so much often that argumenting in a civilized manner becomes hard and tiring.

        There is always a master shill that organizes the shilling, and a few of his soldiers of his that reinforce his arguments.

        And then there are the sheeps and fanboys that go along with everything.




        Actually it isn't. It depends on how much interaction you've had and how much reading you've done in these threads. Users that fail to listen to reason, that try spreading false information and FUD against Core constantly (even though they've been corrected several times) are really obvious (as an example).

        On the internet its hard to tell, you know that phenomena where you cant tell on the internet if  person is very sarcastic or really that dumb.




        It is best to stay away from places such as r/btc. You would only waste your time there.

        Luckily 'btc' has less google seraches than 'bitcoin' , so most newbies will more likely join /bitcoin subreddit after their first google search.

        So for now we have the upper hand and the majority of will of the users.

        https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=btc%2C%20bitcoin&date=today%2012-m&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Alley on March 02, 2016, 08:49:13 PM
        I generally dismiss people running sig campaigns.  They are moslty just posting anything to get the min number of words to earn a few pennies.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: davedx on March 02, 2016, 09:10:01 PM
        The problem is that some people (e.g. Lauda) instantly dismiss anyone who tries to have a reasonable discussion with them as being a shill, troll, or whatever.

        On /r/bitcoin you can't even mention non-core clients without your posts or comments being removed.

        On here people verbally attack you for daring to challenge the consensus.

        This isn't "consensus" you fuckwits, it's you trying to shout down anyone with a "dissenting" viewpoint from yours or Blockstream's.

        How do people explain the miners mining classic blocks right now? Is that your consensus? Are you saying the miners are as stupid as the people running the classic nodes? As the people working on forks of core? As the people who hang out in /r/btc because they are censored in the "official" bitcoin subreddit?

        People have this anti-intellectual "us or them" mentality that prevents real discussion of the technical merits of each strategy.

        FWIW I can't help feeling a bit of schadenfreude at this so-called "spam attack", after my and my friend's classic nodes were repeatedly DDOS'd over the past week.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: David Rabahy on March 02, 2016, 09:23:01 PM
        This is really interesting.  I started running Classic recently and I too feel like I might have been the target of a DoS attack the last couple of days; my router/firewall has been reporting lots of teardrop attacks (way more than ever before) and as such has been less responsive than before.  How does one determine they are being attacked for sure?


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: chrisvl on March 02, 2016, 09:26:16 PM
        This is really interesting.  I started running Classic recently and I too feel like I might have been the target of a DoS attack the last couple of days; my router/firewall has been reporting lots of teardrop attacks (way more than ever before) and as such has been less responsive than before.  How does one determine they are being attacked for sure?
        http://nodecounter.com/how_to_defeat_ddos_attacks_against_bitcoin_classic.php


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: ShrykeZ on March 02, 2016, 09:28:02 PM
        Right now Bitcoin's price is rallying and block are full. According to blockchain.info backlog of unconfirmed transactions is 11.6 MB right now and as far as I know there is now spam or stress test going on. How worse does it need to get?

        This is just a spam attack on the network, nothing more.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: chrisvl on March 02, 2016, 09:30:38 PM
        Right now Bitcoin's price is rallying and block are full. According to blockchain.info backlog of unconfirmed transactions is 11.6 MB right now and as far as I know there is now spam or stress test going on. How worse does it need to get?

        This is just a spam attack on the network, nothing more.
        Definitely needs a block-size limit increase


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Lauda on March 02, 2016, 09:35:13 PM
        Definitely needs a block-size limit increase
        Which effectively does nothing in the case of an attack. A block size limit increase does not prevent these types of attacks.

        The problem is that some people (e.g. Lauda) instantly dismiss anyone who tries to have a reasonable discussion with them as being a shill, troll, or whatever.
        Disagreeing is one thing, refusing to listen to reason and evidence is another.

        On /r/bitcoin you can't even mention non-core clients without your posts or comments being removed.
        Censorship is present on /r/btc.

        This is just a spam attack on the network, nothing more.
        Correct.

        Luckily 'btc' has less google seraches than 'bitcoin' , so most newbies will more likely join /bitcoin subreddit after their first google search.
        /r/btc is very toxic and should be avoided in any case, especially for new users.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: chrisvl on March 02, 2016, 09:44:21 PM
        Lauda you must be lawyer right ? I did not say that the block-size increase will prevent spam but it will help to have a smooth network operation,Censorship is present on /r/btc. it is obvious that r/bitcoin is censorship,if you think the Censorship is present on /r/btc and not on r/bitcoin you just dreaming,let see things as they are and not as we would like to be


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Lauda on March 02, 2016, 09:53:18 PM
        Lauda you must be lawyer right?
        I'm a lot of things, but that is not one of them.

        I did not say that the block-size increase will prevent spam but it will help to have a smooth network operation.
        I assumed that you think that an increase will solve the 'problems'/prevent attacks such as the one that occurred yesterday (which is the case with a lot of people). It is good that you understand that it won't. However, a block size limit increase is not necessary right now as Segwit will be implemented first which should increase the transaction capacity of the network. Theoretically (considering how resourceful some people are) the blocks could be always full.

        if you think the Censorship is present on /r/btc and not on r/bitcoin you just dreaming,let see things as they are and not as we would like to be
        I never said such. However, I've seen a decent amount of 'people' complaining about /r/bitcoin and using /r/btc even though problems are present on both. Try posting something positive about Core on /r/btc and tell me what happens.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Alley on March 02, 2016, 09:53:45 PM
        A larger blocksize will make a spam attack more expensive, no?


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: chrisvl on March 02, 2016, 10:01:48 PM
        Lauda you must be lawyer right?
        I'm a lot of things, but that is not one of them.

        I did not say that the block-size increase will prevent spam but it will help to have a smooth network operation.
        I assumed that you think that an increase will solve the 'problems'/prevent attacks such as the one that occurred yesterday (which is the case with a lot of people). It is good that you understand that it won't. However, a block size limit increase is not necessary right now as Segwit will be implemented first which should increase the transaction capacity of the network. Theoretically (considering how resourceful some people are) the blocks could be always full.

        if you think the Censorship is present on /r/btc and not on r/bitcoin you just dreaming,let see things as they are and not as we would like to be
        I never said such. However, I've seen a decent amount of 'people' complaining about /r/bitcoin and using /r/btc even though problems are present on both. Try posting something positive about Core on /r/btc and tell me what happens.
        I dont say can solve problem like prevent attacks,Segwit is good idea but an increase would required,you have try to post on r/bitcoin about xt or classic ?


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Blawpaw on March 02, 2016, 10:07:44 PM
        yes. that is something that the developers have been warning for some time now. ANd that is also why it is urgent to have a block size increase.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Lauda on March 02, 2016, 10:09:57 PM
        Segwit is good idea but an increase would required
        Segwit should increase the transaction capacity to ~180-190% (or even more depending on use cases). This is close enough to a 2 MB block size limit (keep in mind that there is no guarantee that miners won't use their soft limits again). An increase is most likely going to happen, the question is just when.

        you have try to post on r/bitcoin about xt or classic ?
        You should know how contentious HF's are viewed in these places by now. Implementations that don't break consensus are allowed (AFAIK). I'm not involved in either subreddit so I can't say much.

        A larger blocksize will make a spam attack more expensive, no?
        Not necessarily.

        ANd that is also why it is urgent to have a block size increase.
        No.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Dissonance on March 02, 2016, 10:10:05 PM
        A larger blocksize will make a spam attack more expensive, no?

        Bingo... a 2MB block is significantly more expensive to fill.  Lets assume the average block size is about ~.2/3 filled a spammer only has to fill ~1/3MB.  If the block is 2MB that requires 4x the money.  Does it stop it no...but it makes it alot harder.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: David Rabahy on March 02, 2016, 10:13:34 PM
        This is really interesting.  I started running Classic recently and I too feel like I might have been the target of a DoS attack the last couple of days; my router/firewall has been reporting lots of teardrop attacks (way more than ever before) and as such has been less responsive than before.  How does one determine they are being attacked for sure?
        http://nodecounter.com/how_to_defeat_ddos_attacks_against_bitcoin_classic.php
        That really does not seem right; both sides could do that.  Soon we will need PoW or something to vote.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: David Rabahy on March 02, 2016, 10:19:43 PM
        A larger blocksize will make a spam attack more expensive, no?
        Maybe.  Maybe not.  The cost of a spam attack depends on the fees associated with the transactions.  With a bigger block size perhaps the spammer could get away with smaller fees.  If the fees are smaller enough then it could more than offset the larger block size.  If only things were simple.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: chrisvl on March 02, 2016, 10:23:19 PM
        Segwit is good idea but an increase would required
        Segwit should increase the transaction capacity to ~180-190% (or even more depending on use cases). This is close enough to a 2 MB block size limit (keep in mind that there is no guarantee that miners won't use their soft limits again). An increase is most likely going to happen, the question is just when.
        Quote
        I know about Segwit,in my opinion in the near future we should find a definitively solution regarding the incease,so the future we can be able to deal with different problems that may occur, and not to keep in mind the block-size problem


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: RealBitcoin on March 02, 2016, 10:34:33 PM
        Segwit is good idea but an increase would required
        Segwit should increase the transaction capacity to ~180-190% (or even more depending on use cases). This is close enough to a 2 MB block size limit (keep in mind that there is no guarantee that miners won't use their soft limits again). An increase is most likely going to happen, the question is just when.
        Quote
        I know about Segwit,in my opinion in the near future we should find a definitively solution regarding the incease,so the future we can be able to deal with different problems that may occur, and not to keep in mind the block-size problem

        If it will be necessary to raise blocks then it will be, but better raise them later than now because i heard that many vulnerabilities could occur that way, which could endanger the system.

        It needs way more testing, and a hard fork is hard to orchestrate and can hurt bitcoin very badly, so its only a last case scenario.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: chrisvl on March 02, 2016, 10:43:15 PM
        Segwit is good idea but an increase would required
        Segwit should increase the transaction capacity to ~180-190% (or even more depending on use cases). This is close enough to a 2 MB block size limit (keep in mind that there is no guarantee that miners won't use their soft limits again). An increase is most likely going to happen, the question is just when.
        Quote
        I know about Segwit,in my opinion in the near future we should find a definitively solution regarding the incease,so the future we can be able to deal with different problems that may occur, and not to keep in mind the block-size problem

        If it will be necessary to raise blocks then it will be, but better raise them later than now because i heard that many vulnerabilities could occur that way, which could endanger the system.

        It needs way more testing, and a hard fork is hard to orchestrate and can hurt bitcoin very badly, so its only a last case scenario.
        I do not think that a hard fork can hurt bitcoin,however a hard fork is required,vulnerabilities like ?


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: RealBitcoin on March 02, 2016, 10:53:36 PM

        I do not think that a hard fork can hurt bitcoin,however a hard fork is required,vulnerabilities like ?

        there is something about network propagation rate or something like that and about orphan blocks.

        I`m not an expert on this, but there are vulnerabilities.


        TX /s dropped from yesterday 1.7/s to 0.3/s, I think the spam is over
        https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Lauda on March 03, 2016, 07:10:56 AM
        I do not think that a hard fork can hurt bitcoin,however a hard fork is required,vulnerabilities like ?
        Hard Forks can't be done often for various reasons, therefore we should use one to fix things that are over-due. The HF that Classic is proposed: 1) Does not fix anything (adds sigops limitation that will have to be remove anyhow); 2) Is fundamentally flawed in its design (grace period, consensus threshold).

        there is something about network propagation rate or something like that and about orphan blocks.

        I`m not an expert on this, but there are vulnerabilities.
        Reading this might be useful: Bitcoin vulnerabilities (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses); Hard fork wishlist (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Hardfork_Wishlist).


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Amph on March 03, 2016, 07:40:45 AM
        A larger blocksize will make a spam attack more expensive, no?

        Bingo... a 2MB block is significantly more expensive to fill.  Lets assume the average block size is about ~.2/3 filled a spammer only has to fill ~1/3MB.  If the block is 2MB that requires 4x the money.  Does it stop it no...but it makes it alot harder.

        this assuming that the block will not be filled completely in the future, basically they are waiting for the right time to have the hard fork for 2mb

        for the right time i mean when in theory the 2mb increase is full already when adopted...this will only lead to an endless cycle where we always need an increase....


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Matias on March 03, 2016, 08:20:16 AM
        I don't think that this is spam. Growth is rather linear during last 60 days

        https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions?timespan=60days&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=7&show_header=true&scale=0&address=

        Mempool grows suddenly, when transactions don't go trough. It gives an impression of a sudden increase, but to my understanding it is just that when amount of transactions rises above certain treshold, congestion starts and when congestion starts, mempool jumps suddenly allthough it is just a symptom of linear growth achieving congestion treshold.



        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: SuperCoinGuy on March 03, 2016, 08:22:54 AM
        Is the Bitcoin network under attack guys? I am reading on another site that we must be careful of double-spending and due to this getting double charged.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Matias on March 03, 2016, 08:34:21 AM
        ^If you wait confirmations, there is no problem. But it takes longer confirmations to come.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Lauda on March 03, 2016, 08:36:54 AM
        I don't think that this is spam. Growth is rather linear during last 60 days
        https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions?timespan=60days&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=7&show_header=true&scale=0&address=
        It was an attack. What you've linked shows the number of transactions that went through (on a particular day). The attacker was creating a lot of transactions in the 1-10 satoshis per byte range. This filled up the mempool.

        Is the Bitcoin network under attack guys?
        It was 2 days ago. It seems to have stopped.

        But it takes longer confirmations to come.
        If you included the recommended fee which was 60 satoshis/byte (still is), it doesn't.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Matias on March 03, 2016, 08:48:24 AM
        I don't think that this is spam. Growth is rather linear during last 60 days
        https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions?timespan=60days&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=7&show_header=true&scale=0&address=
        It was an attack. What you've linked shows the number of transactions that went through (on a particular day). The attacker was creating a lot of transactions in the 1-10 satoshis per byte range. This filled up the mempool.

          

        Ok. My reasoning had a fault. I didn't realize, that the info which I linked only showed those transactions, that went trough.

        Is there any chart showing total number of new transctions (both confirmed and unconfirmed)  per day?


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Mickeyb on March 03, 2016, 09:01:07 AM
        Ok. My reasoning had a fault. I didn't realize, that the info which I linked only showed those transactions, that went trough.

        Is there any chart showing total number of new transctions (both confirmed and unconfirmed)  per day?
        Combining this chart: https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions with this daily chart should give you somewhat of a representation of the attack: cointape.com


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Lauda on March 03, 2016, 09:22:54 AM
        Is there any chart showing total number of new transctions (both confirmed and unconfirmed)  per day?
        There are various places where you can view the number of unconfirmed transactions (I don't think you can get an accurate number for the total amount per day):
        Tradeblock  (https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin/) - ~25k unconfirmed transactions right now.
        Blockchain.info (https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions) - ~21k unconfirmed transactions right now.
        BitcoinFees21 (https://bitcoinfees.21.co/) - Useful for viewing what kind of fees were included (in addition to the recommended fee).


        You can use these three to analyze the situation and possibly determine if an attack is taking place.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Matias on March 03, 2016, 09:35:17 AM
        Membool dropped to zero less than hour ago today suddenly? Is that a glitch in the data?

        https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin/



        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: RealBitcoin on March 03, 2016, 10:03:08 AM
        Is there any chart showing total number of new transctions (both confirmed and unconfirmed)  per day?
        There are various places where you can view the number of unconfirmed transactions (I don't think you can get an accurate number for the total amount per day):
        Tradeblock  (https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin/) - ~25k unconfirmed transactions right now.
        Blockchain.info (https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions) - ~21k unconfirmed transactions right now.
        BitcoinFees21 (https://bitcoinfees.21.co/) - Useful for viewing what kind of fees were included (in addition to the recommended fee).


        You can use these three to analyze the situation and possibly determine if an attack is taking place.
        Membool dropped to zero less than hour ago today suddenly? Is that a glitch in the data?

        https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin/



        Yes now its 100% that it was an attack, why would just drop suddently. This is not a conspiracy theory anymore. It's a real conspiracy, and some evil people conspired against bitcoin to try to slow it down.

        But looks like they ran out of money.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Soros Shorts on March 03, 2016, 10:06:37 AM
        Membool dropped to zero less than hour ago today suddenly? Is that a glitch in the data?

        https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin/



        My guess it that it is a glitch. They could have rebooted their node.

        No two nodes have identical mempools. I filter out low-fee and zero-fee transactions on my node and yet my (v0.12.0 capped) mempool was always full.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: MaritiJames3 on March 03, 2016, 10:44:47 AM
        Is there any chart showing total number of new transctions (both confirmed and unconfirmed)  per day?
        There are various places where you can view the number of unconfirmed transactions (I don't think you can get an accurate number for the total amount per day):
        Tradeblock  (https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin/) - ~25k unconfirmed transactions right now.
        Blockchain.info (https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions) - ~21k unconfirmed transactions right now.
        BitcoinFees21 (https://bitcoinfees.21.co/) - Useful for viewing what kind of fees were included (in addition to the recommended fee).


        You can use these three to analyze the situation and possibly determine if an attack is taking place.

        That's are some handy sites. Never had some tools to verify a actual hack was happening.
        BTW
        20290 Unconfirmed Transactions Live updating list of new bitcoin transactions

        Is a lot man



        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: aarons6 on March 03, 2016, 10:48:17 AM
        Is there any chart showing total number of new transctions (both confirmed and unconfirmed)  per day?
        There are various places where you can view the number of unconfirmed transactions (I don't think you can get an accurate number for the total amount per day):
        Tradeblock  (https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin/) - ~25k unconfirmed transactions right now.
        Blockchain.info (https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions) - ~21k unconfirmed transactions right now.
        BitcoinFees21 (https://bitcoinfees.21.co/) - Useful for viewing what kind of fees were included (in addition to the recommended fee).


        You can use these three to analyze the situation and possibly determine if an attack is taking place.

        That's are some handy sites. Never had some tools to verify a actual hack was happening.
        BTW
        20290 Unconfirmed Transactions Live updating list of new bitcoin transactions

        Is a lot man



        yes and if pools like antpool filled up their blocks it would take out a huge chunk of those..
        add this site to your list
        http://bitblk.com/bitcoin/pool/AntPool/


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: arlene05973 on March 03, 2016, 10:52:51 AM
        arlene05973


        ........rallying and block are full.....

        Pls, i'm sorry asking this for the second time. how does this affect the seller's or a buyer's?


        Thanks

        It affects them so that bitcoin transactions with a standard fee might not get a confirmation for hours or even days.

        So they would need to know about it to adjust the fee, they would need to use a wallet that does adjust the fee automatically or they would need to wait.

        So the downside is that they pay more, not much more at the current time, or they would have a deal that can draw over a long time because no confirmation happens.



        RealBitcoin



        Correct. Didn't you notice the shills saying that we need a 2 MB block size limit and that people should run Classic or BU?


        Hard to tell who is shill and who is not on this forum, and on reddit.

        But I saw real shills on btc classic youtube videos, and +30 upvotes on shill coments when the whole video had less than 100 likes.

        Whoever runs this shill campaign has planned it very well, because they are promoting it on every front.

        I think it does not really need a shill army for that to happen. The only thing needed would be fans of he idea and a community that video was posted in right after release. For sure many of the viewers would upvote the vide.

        Doesn't really mean that they have to be paid supporters or sockpuppet accounts. Of course it is possible that they are.

        Well, I'm pretty sick of this political war. Emotions are heated up so much often that argumenting in a civilized manner becomes hard and tiring.






        @SebastianJu, thanks for the clarification.this should not cause trouble or division among them.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: ivanleung on March 03, 2016, 01:59:11 PM
        Right now Bitcoin's price is rallying and block are full. According to blockchain.info backlog of unconfirmed transactions is 11.6 MB right now and as far as I know there is now spam or stress test going on. How worse does it need to get?

        The median block size of 2 weeks is as high as 0.95Mbytes.Check it here. https://chain.btc.com/en/
        Scaling bitcoin is necessary!


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Lauda on March 03, 2016, 02:39:55 PM
        That's are some handy sites. Never had some tools to verify a actual hack was happening.
        Not a hack, an attack. Those two concepts aren't the same.

        20290 Unconfirmed Transactions Live updating list of new bitcoin transactions
        It's not a small number, but we have seen worse.

        Scaling bitcoin is necessary!
        The network will have a higher capacity as soon as Segwit is released and adopted. Bitcoin will be able to process a lot more in the future.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: David Rabahy on March 03, 2016, 05:16:13 PM
        http://web.mit.edu/modiano/www/6.263/lec5-6.pdf


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: SebastianJu on March 03, 2016, 05:47:02 PM
        Lauda


        Segwit is good idea but an increase would required
        Segwit should increase the transaction capacity to ~180-190% (or even more depending on use cases). This is close enough to a 2 MB block size limit (keep in mind that there is no guarantee that miners won't use their soft limits again). An increase is most likely going to happen, the question is just when.

        I think SegWit is a good idea. It will have an effect and will bring bitcoin forward even in the future. It will cut down the space needed for transactions for a certain amount. Regardless of the amount of transactions and current blocksize. So even with 50MB blocks, Segwit might still be able to nearly double the amount. This is a good thing.

        Though I doubt that Segwit will be able to solve the situation fast enough. You know yourself that even when Segwit gets implemented today, the effect would only slowly rise to an effect bringing down the situation. And in the meanwhile the situation can always grow higher than our heads.



        RealBitcoin


        If it will be necessary to raise blocks then it will be, but better raise them later than now because i heard that many vulnerabilities could occur that way, which could endanger the system.

        It needs way more testing, and a hard fork is hard to orchestrate and can hurt bitcoin very badly, so its only a last case scenario.

        Well, it's always good to check arguments out for yourself. I'm sure many of the arguments, when you check them, doesn't sound like a real problem to you anymore then.

        Though yes, a hardfork, especially with a community divided that bad, can become a problem.



        Dissonance


        A larger blocksize will make a spam attack more expensive, no?

        Bingo... a 2MB block is significantly more expensive to fill.  Lets assume the average block size is about ~.2/3 filled a spammer only has to fill ~1/3MB.  If the block is 2MB that requires 4x the money.  Does it stop it no...but it makes it alot harder.

        Yes. Though not completely right. The fees might be lower then though it would not really matter. The blocks now are not full most of the time so there is no reason to believe that 2MB blocks suddenly will have lower fees. The fees probably will be similar to now. So even when fees might be a little bit lower it would help preventing such spam attacks. It simply would be too costly. And nobody tried to spam or attack the network that way before the blocks were nearly as full as now.

        So yes, it would be a good prevention by making them pay a lot.

        The spam now only ran for 2 days I believe. 4 Times the transactions to fill the block would have meant that the attack would be over before it really started. I think that sounds effective.




        Alley


        I generally dismiss people running sig campaigns.  They are moslty just posting anything to get the min number of words to earn a few pennies.

        In fact I'm annoyed by people making special posts to complain about sig campaigns. Not realizing that they spam threads containing mostly perfectly fine, non spam, posts. So posts like that look way more like topic unrelated spam than anything else in that topic.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Lauda on March 03, 2016, 06:54:15 PM
        I think SegWit is a good idea. It will have an effect and will bring bitcoin forward even in the future. It will cut down the space needed for transactions for a certain amount. Regardless of the amount of transactions and current blocksize. So even with 50MB blocks, Segwit might still be able to nearly double the amount. This is a good thing.
        There are other benefits that come along with Segwit as well. It is not just about the transaction capacity.

        Though I doubt that Segwit will be able to solve the situation fast enough. You know yourself that even when Segwit gets implemented today, the effect would only slowly rise to an effect bringing down the situation. And in the meanwhile the situation can always grow higher than our heads.
        Actually this is a good thing. Even if we had a 2 MB block size limit today there is no guarantee that the miners would not impose limits of their own. The sudden bump is not needed. Depending on how much transaction capacity is needed, people are going to adopt clients that already support Segwit. If they don't do so, they are technically saying that they don't need/want more TPS.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Zarathustra on March 03, 2016, 07:24:26 PM
        I think SegWit is a good idea. It will have an effect and will bring bitcoin forward even in the future. It will cut down the space needed for transactions for a certain amount. Regardless of the amount of transactions and current blocksize. So even with 50MB blocks, Segwit might still be able to nearly double the amount. This is a good thing.
        There are other benefits that come along with Segwit as well. It is not just about the transaction capacity.

        Though I doubt that Segwit will be able to solve the situation fast enough. You know yourself that even when Segwit gets implemented today, the effect would only slowly rise to an effect bringing down the situation. And in the meanwhile the situation can always grow higher than our heads.
        Actually this is a good thing. Even if we had a 2 MB block size limit today there is no guarantee that the miners would not impose limits of their own. The sudden bump is not needed.

        Yes, not needed if you want to transfer more market cap to Ethereum every day.
        Dumb - dumber - core developers.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Cuidler on March 03, 2016, 09:09:53 PM
        Even if we had a 2 MB block size limit today there is no guarantee that the miners would not impose limits of their own. The sudden bump is not needed.

        Yes, not needed if you want to transfer more market cap to Ethereum every day.
        Dumb - dumber - core developers.

        Actually there is nothing dumb by doing this, it is well working plan to get financial profit out of rising altcoins when you send Bitcoins users/speculators there because they see Bitcoin is not build on solid grounds anymore when they realizing not enought capacity for everyone.

        Just to show there are selfish financial interests behind, the recent HK consensus deal was possible because F2Pool agreed when at least one participant went on long Bitcoin position right before the HK meeting and if the consensus deal failed, the participant would have huge financial loss. Also Alex insisted to not waste his time by such long negatioating without a result. F2Pool clearly stated he would not agree to such deal if not these two cases - the negatioating would continue the next day probably.


        Quote
        macbook-air  Bitcoin Miner - F2Pool

        In HK, Alex asked me to “respect” his time by agree the consensus asap. Also someone else told me he had bought long position just before the roundtable, if we did not agree, he would lose huge financially. If it was not these two, I would probably have escaped away that night.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: RealBitcoin on March 04, 2016, 12:37:30 AM
        Looks like it's over, only 10k transactions are unconfirmed now. The average fees are also a big high but can be tolerated for the greater good.

        I hope the segwit gets deployed soon.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: nakedbitcoins on March 04, 2016, 12:39:05 AM
        Looks like it's over, only 10k transactions are unconfirmed now. The average fees are also a big high but can be tolerated for the greater good.

        I hope the segwit gets deployed soon.

        No kidding right. Things need to shape up.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Cconvert2G36 on March 04, 2016, 12:42:02 AM
        Looks like it's over, only 10k transactions are unconfirmed now. The average fees are also a big high but can be tolerated for the greater good.

        I hope the segwit gets deployed soon.

        You sure about that?

        Whell, the segwit testnet had a chain fork, we're not really sure why... It's much safer than changing a one to a two tho, and will give us (maybe) 75% of the capacity of the alternative while completely changing the fee economics (75% cheaper) for LN tx.

        I think the best idea would be to rush it out as a capacity fix ASAP on a $6 billion monetary network.   :-\

        https://i.imgur.com/D66MHwE.png (https://botbot.me/freenode/bitcoin-core-dev/)

        Bullish.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: RealBitcoin on March 04, 2016, 12:53:48 AM
        Looks like it's over, only 10k transactions are unconfirmed now. The average fees are also a big high but can be tolerated for the greater good.

        I hope the segwit gets deployed soon.

        You sure about that?

        Whell, the segwit testnet had a chain fork, we're not really sure why... It's much safer than changing a one to a two tho, and will give us (maybe) 75% of the capacity of the alternative while completely changing the fee economics (75% cheaper) for LN tx.

        I think the best idea would be to not? rush it out as a capacity fix ASAP on a $6 billion monetary network.   :-\

        https://i.imgur.com/D66MHwE.png (https://botbot.me/freenode/bitcoin-core-dev/)

        Bullish.

        You mean to not rush it? I dont understand what you are saying.

        If its bugged, then they better test it more, its not good to gamble with a 6 billion $ market.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: BlindMayorBitcorn on March 04, 2016, 08:43:09 AM
        Looks like it's over, only 10k transactions are unconfirmed now. The average fees are also a big high but can be tolerated for the greater good.

        I hope the segwit gets deployed soon.

        You sure about that?

        Whell, the segwit testnet had a chain fork, we're not really sure why... It's much safer than changing a one to a two tho, and will give us (maybe) 75% of the capacity of the alternative while completely changing the fee economics (75% cheaper) for LN tx.

        I think the best idea would be to not? rush it out as a capacity fix ASAP on a $6 billion monetary network.   :-\

        https://i.imgur.com/D66MHwE.png (https://botbot.me/freenode/bitcoin-core-dev/)

        Bullish.

        You mean to not rush it? I dont understand what you are saying.

        If its bugged, then they better test it more, its not good to gamble with a 6 billion $ market.


        That's what he's saying.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: RealBitcoin on March 04, 2016, 09:29:53 AM

        That's what he's saying.

        He misspelled it, i corrected it in his quote



        ITS OVER FOLKS, THE NETWORK IS RESTORED!

        6160 UNCONFIRMED TX , ATTACK IS OVER!

        https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: SebastianJu on March 04, 2016, 10:31:19 AM
        Lauda


        I think SegWit is a good idea. It will have an effect and will bring bitcoin forward even in the future. It will cut down the space needed for transactions for a certain amount. Regardless of the amount of transactions and current blocksize. So even with 50MB blocks, Segwit might still be able to nearly double the amount. This is a good thing.
        There are other benefits that come along with Segwit as well. It is not just about the transaction capacity.

        Can you elaborate? Do you mean less space needed for the same amount of transactions or something directly depending?

        Don't say LN, I don't see that as a benefit. :)

        Though I doubt that Segwit will be able to solve the situation fast enough. You know yourself that even when Segwit gets implemented today, the effect would only slowly rise to an effect bringing down the situation. And in the meanwhile the situation can always grow higher than our heads.
        Actually this is a good thing. Even if we had a 2 MB block size limit today there is no guarantee that the miners would not impose limits of their own. The sudden bump is not needed. Depending on how much transaction capacity is needed, people are going to adopt clients that already support Segwit. If they don't do so, they are technically saying that they don't need/want more TPS.

        Why should the miners impose limits or softlimits again? I don't see a reason for them for doing so. If you speak about propagation time and orphaned blocks athen there already are solutions to this with Matt's? network. That network even beats zero transaction blocks at the moment.

        Well, your last sentence is of somewhat psychological sneaky. Surely not everyone wants segwit. There are enough fears against it. It doesn't mean that they don't want more TPS. They might want it another way and that is completely legit.



        Cuidler


        Quote
        macbook-air  Bitcoin Miner - F2Pool

        In HK, Alex asked me to “respect” his time by agree the consensus asap. Also someone else told me he had bought long position just before the roundtable, if we did not agree, he would lose huge financially. If it was not these two, I would probably have escaped away that night.


        Wow, that's pretty sneaky. So to understand it correctly, the consensus is agreeing to the core devs steps of segwit-lightning network?

        Well, as escrow I hear often sentences like "You waste mine and SebastianJu's time. Send the funds asap or he will give you red trust.". Sentences like that are written often by scammers to push time and to make people less able to check out the goods. Or if someone found a problem with the goods the seller might want to force him to pay that way.

        If such sentences really are used in that topic then it has a bad sound.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: RealBitcoin on March 04, 2016, 10:31:41 AM
        Wow now there are only 4000 transactions.

        Ok guys now the thread can be closed!  ;D


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: SebastianJu on March 04, 2016, 10:49:30 AM
        Wow now there are only 4000 transactions.

        Ok guys now the thread can be closed!  ;D

        I hate closed threads. Especially when I want to answer and I can't anymore. Even worse when the last answer to me let it look like I was completely wrong and I can't explain why Iam right. It's like being forbidden to speak. :)


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Lauda on March 04, 2016, 10:57:42 AM
        Can you elaborate? Do you mean less space needed for the same amount of transactions or something directly depending?
        Here is an article that should help you get started: Segwit benefits (http://www.bitcoinisle.com/2016/02/02/bitcoin-developer-eric-lombrozo-on-five-benefits-of-segregated-witness/).

        Why should the miners impose limits or softlimits again? I don't see a reason for them for doing so. If you speak about propagation time and orphaned blocks athen there already are solutions to this with Matt's? network. That network even beats zero transaction blocks at the moment.
        Why have they done so in the past? There is nothing that suggests that they wouldn't do so again.

        Well, your last sentence is of somewhat psychological sneaky. Surely not everyone wants segwit. There are enough fears against it. It doesn't mean that they don't want more TPS. They might want it another way and that is completely legit.
        No, it is not. It is just a logical statement. Once Segwit is implemented you have two options: 1) Use a client that supports it; 2) Use one that doesn't. If you opt for option two you are indirectly stating that you don't want the increased capacity or you don't need it.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: RealBitcoin on March 04, 2016, 11:05:06 AM
        Wow now there are only 4000 transactions.

        Ok guys now the thread can be closed!  ;D

        I hate closed threads. Especially when I want to answer and I can't anymore. Even worse when the last answer to me let it look like I was completely wrong and I can't explain why Iam right. It's like being forbidden to speak. :)

        Yea but the blocks are not full anymore, or atleast they are back to previous weeks levels, so everything is normal again, so technically this thread is pointless now.

        But sure it can be kept open for discussing the general issue.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: SebastianJu on March 04, 2016, 11:08:38 AM
        Can you elaborate? Do you mean less space needed for the same amount of transactions or something directly depending?
        Here is an article that should help you get started: Segwit benefits (http://www.bitcoinisle.com/2016/02/02/bitcoin-developer-eric-lombrozo-on-five-benefits-of-segregated-witness/).

        Interesting read. Did not know all the points...

        Why should the miners impose limits or softlimits again? I don't see a reason for them for doing so. If you speak about propagation time and orphaned blocks athen there already are solutions to this with Matt's? network. That network even beats zero transaction blocks at the moment.
        Why have they done so in the past? There is nothing that suggests that they wouldn't do so again.

        The only have done so in the past because it was the default setting in the client. I believe it was at 750kB. Even with spam attacks there were often blocks with that size so the soft limit kicked in because those miners were not aware of that setting. That limit was set higher on default later, I believe, and the miners were informed to raise it.

        But they did not set it down themselfes. Maybe some did but it was not the big mass.

        Well, your last sentence is of somewhat psychological sneaky. Surely not everyone wants segwit. There are enough fears against it. It doesn't mean that they don't want more TPS. They might want it another way and that is completely legit.
        No, it is not. It is just a logical statement. Once Segwit is implemented you have two options: 1) Use a client that supports it; 2) Use one that doesn't. If you opt for option two you are indirectly stating that you don't want the increased capacity or you don't need it.

        Well I hope you are not one of the persons that live in a black and white world. I had tiring discussions on political topics with people like that and everyone who saw things a little bit different than they... were on the black side.

        There is still the option to not use Segwit and use, or wait to use, a client that supports bigger blocks.

        This is simply no black and white question.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Lauda on March 04, 2016, 11:11:51 AM
        Interesting read. Did not know all the points...
        Then it is time to stop acting like you do.

        The only have done so in the past because it was the default setting in the client. I believe it was at 750kB.
        The default setting in the client is still 750kB (IIRC), ergo you're wrong.

        There is still the option to not use Segwit and use, or wait to use, a client that supports bigger blocks.
        Which effectively does nothing. If you use Segwit then you are contributing to the more efficient use of transaction space (i.e. the effective block size will be higher). The users decide whether the added space is going to be e.g. 100kB or 500kB.

        Yea but the blocks are not full anymore, or atleast they are back to previous weeks levels, so everything is normal again, so technically this thread is pointless now.
        I would not be surprised if another attack occurred. However, the recommended fee is still higher than usual.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Zarathustra on March 04, 2016, 11:16:11 AM
        Wow now there are only 4000 transactions.

        Ok guys now the thread can be closed!  ;D

        Yes, another wave of adoption stopped and transferred to the alt market cap. Great job.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: RealBitcoin on March 04, 2016, 11:17:42 AM

        I would not be surprised if another attack occurred. However, the recommended fee is still higher than usual.

        Looks like the attacker ran out of money, and probably ended up at net loss, next time they should think twice before attacking bitcoin.

        The recommended fee is an average, so it needs more datapoints until it smoothens out and gets lowered.

        I can now send a small transaction with 10k satoshi again so it should be ok.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: RealBitcoin on March 04, 2016, 11:18:48 AM
        Wow now there are only 4000 transactions.

        Ok guys now the thread can be closed!  ;D

        Yes, another wave of adoption stopped and transferred to the alt market cap. Great job.

        Time to get diversified then brother.

        Holding only bitcoins will make you stressed every time the price falls or stuff like this happens, but if you build an altcoin portfolio, you will sleep better at night.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Zarathustra on March 04, 2016, 11:22:04 AM

        I would not be surprised if another attack occurred. However, the recommended fee is still higher than usual.

        Looks like the attacker ran out of money, and probably ended up at net loss, next time they should think twice before attacking bitcoin.

        The recommended fee is an average, so it needs more datapoints until it smoothens out and gets lowered.

        I can now send a small transaction with 10k satoshi again so it should be ok.

        The crazy cap is the reason why the network can be attacked without much money. With segwit it will be worse.

        https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-394#post-13744


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: samsunk on March 04, 2016, 11:29:04 AM
        Wow now there are only 4000 transactions.

        Ok guys now the thread can be closed!  ;D

        Yes, another wave of adoption stopped and transferred to the alt market cap. Great job.

        Time to get diversified then brother.

        Holding only bitcoins will make you stressed every time the price falls or stuff like this happens, but if you build an altcoin portfolio, you will sleep better at night.

        agreed - keep money moving in altcoins requires time but more chance of proofit

        -samsunk


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: RealBitcoin on March 04, 2016, 11:45:16 AM

        I would not be surprised if another attack occurred. However, the recommended fee is still higher than usual.

        Looks like the attacker ran out of money, and probably ended up at net loss, next time they should think twice before attacking bitcoin.

        The recommended fee is an average, so it needs more datapoints until it smoothens out and gets lowered.

        I can now send a small transaction with 10k satoshi again so it should be ok.

        The crazy cap is the reason why the network can be attacked without much money. With segwit it will be worse.

        https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-394#post-13744

        Is this true or is just a FUD?


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Lauda on March 04, 2016, 12:40:32 PM
        Is this true or is just a FUD?
        Whatever you read in that forum, you shouldn't take it without a big grain of salt. I have no idea how '4 MB witness data' can be considered an 'attack vector'. They also talk about bandwidth requirements but when we mention those at 2 MB block size limit they disregard them.

        Looks like the attacker ran out of money, and probably ended up at net loss, next time they should think twice before attacking bitcoin.
        I doubt that; I don't think that they've spent a lot of money.

        The recommended fee is an average, so it needs more datapoints until it smoothens out and gets lowered.
        Let's see how many days are required before it returns to normal.


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: RealBitcoin on March 04, 2016, 09:07:35 PM

        Let's see how many days are required before it returns to normal.

        I can already send TX with normal fee, it must be a bug, have you seen this:

        https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/7633


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: Cryptology on March 08, 2016, 12:35:12 PM
        Looks like not everybody agrees on the spam attack hypothesis -> http://www.newsbtc.com/2016/03/07/peter-smith-bitcoin-race-against-time/


        Title: Re: Blocks are full.
        Post by: BitUsher on March 08, 2016, 12:40:29 PM
        Looks like not everybody agrees on the spam attack hypothesis -> http://www.newsbtc.com/2016/03/07/peter-smith-bitcoin-race-against-time/

        Blockchain.info continues to embarrass itself. It has been over a year since they had to integrate a dynamic tx fee feature in their wallet and they still are lagging behind almost everyone else.  It is a good thing that all their disastrous security problems scared away many users already.