Bitcoin Forum

Something is brewing in the Bitcoin world? For the last 2-3 days I can I witness slow transactions and huge fees. I got used to 1sat/byte transactions and they always get through so I sent a couple of sats to myself but you can't imagine how surprised I was when I saw my tx is ~75mb from tip! My wallet suggested a fee of 10sat/bytes! So, what's going on? Is this connected with that ordinals mumbo-jumbo?  ???

Take a look at http://mempool.space/ to get the fee rate you need to use, this is the best site available  for that.

Now you need 22 sat/vbyte for a confirmation,  which is not huge.

The reason is an app called Ordinals, something like an NFT using bitcoin blockchain

https://cryptoslate.com/how-ordinals-are-affecting-bitcoin-mempools-transaction-size/

You have missed this thing:
https://talkimg.com/images/2023/05/20/blob2a3005c80b58493e.png

There were just a few days of low fees with 1sat/b after 20 days of high fees, something way higher than before.


Funny enough, his wallet suggested a way cheaper fee.  ;D
I guess he looked at the last confirmed fee, for a few moments of fast blocks indeed a 10sat/b tx got through, but right now we only had 2 blocks in 60 minutes, so even mempool.space might have been misleading an hour ago.

I guess you didn't make any transactions in the past month. Otherwise you would have known about the state of the mempools. Ordinals were introduced in January, and ever since we have witnessed 10-30k of unconfirmed transactions. There was a brief period when the meter dropped down to just a few k, but it didn't last long. Never initiate a bitcoin transaction before you check mempool.space or Jochen Hoenicke's site.   

Not really, as a matter of fact I make transactions regularly, 2-4 times a week and I was able to get away with 1sat/byte fee mostly. I also spotted that bech32 wallets need higher fees to send a tx than older "legacy" wallets. Identical transactions, almost same time and bech32 took longer and demanded higher fee. Just a coincidence?

So, ordinals are to blame for this, exactly as I thought... can we (Bitcoin community) do something to get rid of them? Nodes can ignore them perhaps? This crap has to be stopped, it reminds me of 2017 and tx spam by big blockers, people paid thousands in fees...  >:(

Regarding this:


I'm not sure why you're so ultimative. One can always bump fee, you don't risk anything. And I'm not in a hurry most of the time...  8)

I guess his suggestion is meant to avoid paying higher fees.

Most users just use the fees suggested by the wallet. And those fees are usually much higher than those in the mentioned websites.

You are right to use lower fees when you are not in hurry

If you sent out a transaction at 10 sats/vbyte, just wait it out. It could get confirmed anytime. I don't think you will wait for so long.

This is what I always do and I have never been disappointed when I am sending out a transaction.

I really hate how this NFT bullshit is spreading to the Bitcoin blockchain and spamming it, but I guess there is nothing we can do as of now.

I remember few days ago I made a transaction with higher fee that is required for my transaction to be included in the next block but in a minute or later when I checked its 12 blocks away so even checking the mempool may not be enough so we have to enable RBF so incase if we stuck in a situation and need to make the transfer in a hurry then we can increase the fee again to current state and make the transaction pass through.

Not sure how reliable is this one: https://bitcoinfees.earn.com/
But it's currently showing the fastest and cheapest tx to be at 102 sats/byte, which, for median-size tx, converts to >$5, which is quite a lot.

https://i.imgur.com/9O8HXpk.png

ps. anyone can give a quick explanation on the Byte Vs vByte difference?

a better/fun visualisation

https://txstreet.com/v/btc

you can see southpark characters. the bigger their head the bigger the bloat is of a tx
pending

It happened many times in the past and it will appear again in future.

Cheap fee rate and cheap transaction fee won't last forever. You learned a lesson this time so let's be prepared better for next times. When transaction fee is cheap (means you can get a confirmation with lowest fee rates like 1 sat/vbyte or 2 sat/vbyte, you should move your bitcoin or consolidate your small inputs.

Take advantage of such time to consolidate small inputs that is helpful to reduce transaction size later when you need to send it to somewhere. It is very helpful and fee-saved when network and mempools are heavy and you have to use higher fee rate.

See your Tx in mempool (https://bitcoindata.science/plot-your-transaction-in-mempool.html) with Bitcoindata.science and impacts on transaction sizes by inputs and outputs.

[Guide] Consolidate your small inputs (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2848987.0)

Not surprised at all. Centralized exchanges and centralized platforms always proceed user withdrawals with very high fee rates but they charge very expensive withdrawal fee on users. As a user, you can not control it and another lesson is: if you want to control fee rate you use for your transaction, let's use self custody wallet and broadcast your transaction from it.

Likely the cause is partially from Ordinals.

However, more general, Bitcoin network usually has more demands when BTC price moves sharply upwards or falls down rapidly. It results in greed and panic that will cause more demand to move Bitcoin on the network as fastest as possible.

As far as I can see there are about 20,000 unconfirmed transactions at the moment but about 12,000 are on a 1sat/vbyte fee, about 5,000 on a 2sat/vbyte fee and the rest on a higher fee. According to what I have read, this could be due to what you say about the ordinals or consolidations, otherwise the average fee would be higher.

That visualization tool reminds me about my childhood when I played such old style car racing games. I loved it when I was a kid but now this tool is not interesting with me.

Anyway if anyone need funny visualized tools, let's find them from [LIST] Bitcoin Visualization (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5372610.0). Funny but not too useful.

Not only this sites is unreliable but also it is a malicious website designed to inflate bitcoin fees to unreasonable levels. It has always been reporting outrageously high fees.
For example right now it is still reporting 102 satoshis/byte and calls it "fastest and cheapest transaction fee" whereas even in worst case scenario in the past couple of days the "fastest and cheapest transaction fee" never surpassed 30 and right now it is around 2-3 satoshi/vbytes. In other words this site is maliciously reporting a fee that is 3400% higher!

vbytes is the virtual bytes calculated by taking witness into account (everything gets a factor of 4 except witness) so the size is smaller for SegWit transactions hence you pay less fee.

Bytes was the original estimate where each byte in the transaction counted towards the fee. Vbytes is a more recent estimation that still counts in bytes, but does not count the bytes of certain parts of the transaction such as the witness data (IIRC).

It does.
Virtual size is transaction weight divided by 4 and weight is counting witness by computing "base size" (which is serialized size without witness) multiplied by 3 added to the "total size" (which is serialized size with witness).

nope

bytes are actual real bytes of the full transaction
then
vbytes change this using cludgy code to give:
a. the entire legacy transaction a 4x meaning its total size is not in bytes but 'weight' of 4x of bytes
b. segwit get multiplied differently

(remember byte are bytes.. the international standard of measuring data!
the weight crap is a dev politic implemented cludge math of silly miscalculation.. its not division or discount of byte, its instead multiplication/premium of byte)

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm going to do. I'm not in a hurry, so I'll wait.

I want to believe that this ordinals plague can be stopped before it grows to gargantuan size. Can NFT transactions be marked and refused by most nodes? Or perhaps increase fee for NFT transactions?

NFT make our live worse

Absolutely nailed it!  ;D

I'm on my 3rd day waiting thanks to the Ordinals spam.

50 may not be "much", but its still 50 times more than before this spam attack. It would be fine if the congestion was because of actual Bitcoin transactions, but this is abuse of foreign entities against the Bitcoin blockchain.

I at the very least, will boycott those involved in it.

There's a change quite alright from the transaction fee recommended but still yet that does not mean you shouldn't adjust to your desired priority which the dept and time taken will be the determinant as expressed on the mempool, so if i were you, all i will first do before making a transaction is to check on the mempool first through mempool.space and see how busy it was abd also check the recommendations for the three priorities before sending my transaction, also you can adjust the charges by pumping it should it case you experience delay in time of confirmation, but to be honest the said amount of charges is still affordable because it's still within zero point in USD, meaning not upto a dollar you're being charged.

True, I was one of those 'victims' of this so called 'ordinals', and I later found out what is doing in the bitcoin networks. Story goes that I used to pay just ~2 sat/VB on my every transactions and it seems to get confirmed easily without any issues.

But starting like in the 3rd week of February, I suddenly surprised that it didn't go in as what I have expected. And worst it took me 24 hours, was the first time to see this long for my transaction to get confirmed. Now, I have to check the mempool before sending any transaction and it become expensive now the best I pay now is like ~9 sat/VB so that's almost x5 of what I previously paid. And if I want it to be confirmed quicker, I have to pay more.

Check your wallet settings for RBF option. If your transaction is RBF-opted in, you can bump fee later like in Ordinal case. Default, RBF is chosen but check to make sure you did not uncheck it by mistake.

RBF: Replace by Fee.

I'm afraid that the only manner to slow down the damage of this nonsense is to rise the block size limit.

I'd say impossible-- period. You can't arbitrarily force on a protocol level what you find appropriate as fee. That's a miner's job. And if we reach the phase where we don't treat each byte equally, we're censoring.

That big block nonsense may cause way more damage than ordinal nonsense.  ;D  Remember Bitcoin Cash? Been there done that!

There has to be some other solution... like persuading the guy behind ordinals to migrate to ETH blockchain? Perhaps he's not aware of all advantages of ETH?  ;D

I know well, but I'm afraid there is no other option to lower the cost of a byte in a pro-freedom network other than to increase the supply limit.

I heard it's cheaper there. Maybe he should approach the Ethereans. Far more friendly with NFTs.  :P

So you want to use a free and decentralized coin that is available for all the people and restrict it for those people and use cases you don't like? That's not how Bitcoin works. If it did that, it would be the same shit we grew up around, called traditional finance. I am not happy with the ordinal crap clogging up the mempools either, but Bitcoin doesn't do blacklists.

After we do that, I suggest we implement mandatory KYC in Bitcoin to prevent the Irish and Swedes from using it at all. My God, such horrible people. Our suggestions have equal chances of getting implemented.

---

This is a good test to see if Bitcoin is ready for a full-scale economy. And, how does everyone think it's doing? People are dreaming of bitcoin becoming the currency of the world, but it's currently struggling with bananas. Imagine the horror of sending a transaction if it did gain a huge influx of new users that constantly use it.

Is there any particular reason for this to happen? Usually this happens when exchanges consolidate their wallets but I don't think any such thing is happening now so is this from any individual to lower the transaction speeds of other while they were in the price manipulation process? Maybe my query look stupid but that is what sparked in my mind about this.

Thanks for sharing, that's a really amusing one. The never-ending low fee line looks pretty scary:
https://i.imgur.com/YDuVO8s.png

But the median fee is $0.82, so things are not so bad I guess.

Could be. I think it was the first, or one of the first, websites of this type, so I got it bookmarked. But I remember always paying lower than that without much delay.

---

Anyone can link me to a reliable site that shows the median, cheapest high priority fee (not just the median fee or sats/vByte), ideally in BTC and in USD? I can't see such option in the links posted above.

All this talk about Ordinals.... is it really making that much of a difference? I mean who is even using that stuff? Are people actually making NFTs and selling them and moving them around on Bitcoin? It seems like such a niche thing its hard to imagine many people would be using them on Bitcoin. I only see it mentioned here, I've never heard of it outside this forum.

its not about how many people are:
interested
making them
selling them
buying them

its about how many crap memes are being bloated into a block by a small idiot group

there have been examples where one person has put in over 10,000 crap memes into the blockchain. and its that bloat in of itself that is causing problems. it doesnt matter if other people then trade it or price it or any other worthless social stuff.. its that 1 person being capable of adding between 3GB (0.3mb meme*10000) to 39gb (3.9mb*10000) all by themself
in less than a couple months

there are people that can take an image. EG a monkey
and have a algo that can change
the background by 10 colours
eyes by 10 colours (100 variations so far)
mouth positions by 10 expressions (1000 variations so far)
ear size/shape or face direction by 10 (10000 variations)

and produce said stockpile of images in minutes
and then put upto 10 of them per block to fill a block
with a stockpile to keep repeating for upto 1000 blocks (a week shortest time)

and then repeat with a new animal each week

Wouldn't that make it very costly though? If they were to fill the entire block, to get in, they'd have to pay around of what the average fees-per-block is, currently over $4k (if my quick search was correct).

What does Taproot actually do? Does it only allow to upload images on chain, or does it also reduces the cost of doing that somehow?

these memes are being put into blocks by pools that love cheap spam
this one for instance is 122kb of dead weight. but only paying 0.5sat/byte ($13 for 122kb)
https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/transactions/btc/d6537aa2e01e5cb5532ff30ba4401986ba9b7247f5e772f68a23fac5eca2d098

here is one that is 3.9mb of dead weight and paid NO FEE
https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/transactions/btc/0301e0480b374b32851a9462db29dc19fe830a7f7d7a88b81612b9d42099c0ae

an average block has about 2000tx. is about 1.3mb in size and pays about 0.1x in fees

however there are some blocks that contain lots of deadweight memes
where the fee is far less but the total size of block is over 3mb
such as block 779272 (https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/blocks/btc/779272) with only 427 tx and only paying a total block fee of 0.02891196


taproot was suppose to promise "one signature length" witness weight max..
(the idea was to make multisig less bloaty)

here is the thing. as soon as taproot got activated (business sponsored request for taproot) sipa then retired and relinquished his github privileges. the other core devs are now unsure what to do so playing party games of saying nothing can be done..
yep the remaining lead maintainers of core have the coding power but dont/cant use it due to how much cludge they would have to undo now. without the guy that implemented it to consult

however the solution is simple.
simply changing the "upto wight(4mb)" they can say that taproot is upto 64-80byte(one signature length)
and it does not break "backward" nodes. because a taproot if only 80byte witness is still with the upto 4mb status of current acceptance parameters. thus no harm to the network. but does stop future bloat

Man, you're clueless. You're mixing apples and oranges here. What's happening now with these ordinals is called terrorism. It's not freedom, it's undermining the whole system, whole Bitcoin world. What you're saying is "oh, poor dude, he beat the sh*t out of blockchain with his 25 billions of monkey pics! let him go on, it's freedom!".

And no, it's not a test. It's just abuse and making something work not as it was meant to.  >:(

The https://mempool.space/ has been doing a pretty good job with a simple understandable UI. It has the values in both satoshi and dollar.
https://i.imgur.com/rE12Bor.jpg

There is also https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#BTC,24h,weight which is a very old tool to visualize the mempool and see the total size for each fee level. But it is not the most user friendly.
And of course there are wallets such as Electrum that also do a pretty good job at giving the user a good fee estimation.

It’s certainly bloating the blockchain to a high degree, and whilst a few days ago the number of Digital Artifacts (AKA Ordinals) seemed to revert, leading to lower bloating percentages for a few days, things have picked-up the pace again over the last few days, causing the fees to rise again during certain intervals on and off.

There are so many reasons this happens.  During runs, no matter if bull or bear, you likely already know.  Every body spends and receives so the Mempool goes full.  But when fees are very low, as in around 1 Sat per vByte, it is a perfect opportunity to consolidate outputs.  I do this very often.  Others here do as well.

But now imagine an entity needing to consolidate so many outputs in different transactions or process a ton of transactions internally.  Of course they will profit off the moment and consolidate it when fees are low.  So expect big spikes in Mempool queue every time fees go down to around 1 Sat per vByte.  This is just how it works.  Every body wants to move money at cheap rates.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

Don't be a cheapass. Just pay a higher fee.

If you think these fees are too high to transact on the world's most secure computational network, you're a newb, that's the only explanation.

Be happy people are using Bitcoin for things and not other blockchains.

paying more does not cause mining pools to want your transaction more then a spam meme

there are already many spam memes that pay NO FEE AT ALL but allowed to bloat a whole block
https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/transactions/btc/0301e0480b374b32851a9462db29dc19fe830a7f7d7a88b81612b9d42099c0ae
 3,938,383 Bytes - fee: ZERO

telling everyone to pay more solves nothing
also $1 seems cheap to you but you forget one thing in your diatribe
WORLD currency. where by $1 tx or $22 tx are more then a few hours of labour,

you do know paying from first world countries costs XX using services like western union.. but third world countries pay far less domestically..
and what your not realising is saying "bitcoin is cheap" is not cheap  

but you need to look outside of your own prospective to see what the real world offers

a $1 tx for america is 50% of a US starbuck coffee
but its way more for a african, indian

so you saying pay more is actually pricing out a 3rd of the world from seeing bitcoin as useful

Come on, Franky, the fact that some can now and then make a deal with the mining pool to mine their tx with small or no (on-chain) fee (who knows if other payment was made and how much that was?) is an exception.
The rule is that in 99.999% of the cases a mining pools will prefer the transactions with the higher fees ( per vByte ).


On the other hand, I do agree that paying more may, on long term only make all the fees gradually increase with no benefit for anybody else than the miners. Plus the users think that the next fee after 1 sat/vByte is 2 sat/vByte, not 1.1 or so, making the rise more abrupt.
I'd like to see this NFT spam gone, but I don't think it'll happen too soon. And I fear we are heading to ... what we had in December 2017 (as fees).

you do know that while you want everyone else to pay more fee's where you are trying to justify that paying over 10sat/byte is a happy number

the ordinal junk pays 0.5sat/byte as their norm
and less. where there are examples of paying nothing at all

pools dont care. to them only having to collate 1 transactions with 1 sigop is quick computation for collating data. thus they can push out blocktemplate hashs faster. thus win rewards sooner then competition
you crying about "but pools need their 0.013btc extra"... whilst actual pools happily would sacrifice that extra for a few seconds start on their next block to get more chances of 6.25
yep even a 2/600 chance increase is worth more then "normal fees"

oh and as for mining pools
the pools dont do the hard work. they are just data collators(pool stratum owners dont do the hashing). they dont care what the actual asics get in the end. whether its a cut of 6.2 (pool takes 0.05) or a cut of 6.213 (tx fee 0.013, pool takes 0.05)

the pool itself does not care. pools even do empty blocks at times too. they dont care. its the asic miners who are remote users to the pool server.. whom have the main split after pool takes it cut
and asic miners have no say in what junk their hash represents

a pool would love to give miners less coin. becasue that then pushes the cost per coin up meaning it affects the market rate

I'm not trying to justify anything. Imho any fee bigger than the minimal (for my small sized transactions) is probably not worth it because I'd pay less on LN if I'd bother switching.


I don't deny that. But if there's no huge improvement in the number of blocks mined by the pool, the miners will not be happy about those fees they're losing.
And I can bet that the pool does care about keeping (most of) its miners there.


Again, I think that you're over-simplifying the things. Let's say the pool doesn't care and mines empty blocks. But if the pool constantly mines empty blocks and the miners don't get the income they're expecting, they'll leave. And then the pool will care. (Of course, again, the pool will make sure this doesn't happen, hence will try to find a good balance.)


... But I think that we've started now to get somewhat off topic...

And the spammers will do as well. Guess who will win?

No, its not about "using blockchain", its about Bitcoin transactions.

The irony is that its the "newb" that would pay the high transactions, since the wallets will by default estimate the fee and use high one so it doesn't take "too long", which is where most "newb" complains comes from about Bitcoin being both expensive and slow.

Get the spam out of Bitcoin, and boycott anyone involved in producing and pushing this spam.

The "minimum wage" in Venezuela is currently the equivalent of $5 (five USD) a month, most private companies pay at least about $40. Many fled the country and are sending money back from abroad for their families, those who don't know Bitcoin would pay the likes of Western Union 15~30 dollars per 100 sent... This is THE reason El Salvador adopted Bitcoin.

Oh yes, i forgot to mention blackouts are frequent in most parts of the country. Guess how well that plays for running a lightning node?

miners prefer getting more block wins per day. compared to the fees

lets run the numbers in a scenario:
a pool of 20% hashrate
gets ~29blocks = 181.25btc a day roughly
the fee's of that day is usually 0.013 a block = 0.377 a day

now imagine over a whole day
would you prefer the pool manager manually selects transactions, does all the checks and sigops on thousands of tx a block template collation causing a delay in blockhashing start times. meaning that instead of 181.25btc average daily coin... it may get 1 less block= 175btc due to messing around with tx burden/selection just for 0.377. meaning 175.377

which would you care more for
181.25 or 175.377

as you can see. saving time by doing less block collating means better chance of earning an extra block per day which reaps better income then doing the transaction management/selection

This logic is useful only if another pool gets a target hash in the same time, which happens rather rarely.
In most cases that competition for milliseconds between pools doesn't exist. It's not like all pools find the block all the time exactly at 11:23:56.777 and being the quickest really matters.
So normally the pool can easily grab both the block and the fees. Sometimes it may not be able do that, but it doesn't know when is that.

Maybe I'm missing something, but really, if you would be right, all miners would just mine empty blocks.

read the stats
pools accept dead weight memes for less than genuine tx sat/byte.. all way way to 0 fee
=shows pools dont care about demanding spam bloat "pays more"

secondly look at the stats of dates pre-spam bloat
empty block: 779013, 778,663, 775,654 (just some of many randomly seen)

i can show you lot more of "thin blocks" where there is a low threshold of transactions

i could also tell you about how mining pools do things

for instance most pools now start their block template empty of transactions.
and as asics run through their rounds of nonce/extra nonce.
pools then send out the next round with extra tx added. where by blocks solved in a couple minutes from previous are usually alot more empty then a block that took ~5 ~10 minutes

take some time to find every empty block. and you will see its previous block is under 2 minutes prior

Ok just to break the ice, I try and tested it out again,

Mempool says that I overpaid, Lol, but in previous days, just like 2-3 days ago, mempool is congested that I have to pay double that price to 6-7 sat/vB. So I guess everyone needs to check the mempool and not to used wallet suggestion as it might be too much, just saying.

another rule bitcoin consensus can have to mitigate the spam/empty blocking
have blocks rejected if they only contain under 1000tx

that would suddenly inspire pools to fill blocks with more transactions

The fee market only works for normal spam attack types but not with a incentivized spam attack. Ordinals is the later and the bigger it gets and the bigger market that it gains the bigger the spam is going to get because people who are gambling with these shittokens don't care about paying a higher fee.
Exactly like what the exchanges do, a gambler trading shittokens on CEX doesn't care much about paying a high withdrawal fee.

I'm referencing the fact that, for much of Bitcoin's history, average fees have been much higher than they currently are now. Fees aren't particularly higher now than they have been in the last year:

https://i.imgur.com/euc7vzN.png (https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-median_transaction_fee.html#1y)

Will the median fee ever go below 50 cents again? Yes, most likely when the ordinals craze dies down.

Crypto remittances to El Salvador have actually fallen over the last year:

https://cryptonews.com/news/crypto-accounts-for-less-than-2-of-all-el-salvadors-remittances-btc-adoption-plan-failed.htm

I think Bitcoin (and some other cryptocurrencies) are great for this type of cross-border transfer, but I also think Bukele was taken advantage of by clout addicts like Jack Mallers for the purpose of creating superhero levels of hopium for their fan base. As of Nov., El Salvador's average buy price was $43,357. 🤦

And if you have blackouts and the internet is out, you can't use regular BTC, either.. doesn't just affect lightning nodes.

The problem I see with that is that not only would you get rid of spam, you would also invalidate the mining of empty blocks whose hash is discovered a few milliseconds after the previous one. Although I suppose if the spam problem becomes serious, the miners could potentially come to an agreement. At the moment AFAIK there is only one that has never mined an empty block:

and the answer in the form of a rhetorical question. should blocks get solved in milliseconds or in an average 2016block/fortnight(~10min)

whereby less blocks in milliseconds stops affecting the difficulty negatively(raising diff to make it harder(shooting self in foot))

yep empty blocking means mempool size increases by delaying transaction inclusion into blocks and causes a difficulty rise by making blocks too fast

Well, an average is just that, an average. It takes 10 minutes or milliseconds or an hour or more. I'm not a miner, I was trying to point out that you would not only penalise spam but also miners who have no bad intentions when mining empty blocks, but I recognise that potentially in the future they could come to an agreement on this.

Thanks for your opinion, but did you even read this thread? Or is this irony?

I don't object paying more if there's valid reason for that. I'd be happy to help miners, help improve Bitcoin infrastructure, help maintain LN nodes etc but why should we all pay for some d*ckhead uploading billions of monkey pics believing "it's the next big thing" and hoping he can get rich by selling you that crap some day? You seriously think Bitcoin was built for that purpose?  ;D


I'm not even going to comment on this, it's just laughable! Muahahaha...  ;D

The "valid reason" is to make sure your tx is included in the next block. This privilege costs about 50 cents at the moment. Does that really constitute a problem?

What's funny to me is that people believe their opinions have any effect on the situation.

It's funny how some somewhat established members of the Bitcoin community suddenly switched from "censorship-resistant transactions" to "we need to stop this spam / bloating" and "there has to be a valid reason to make transactions".  ::)

When the mempool is full, and you're forced to pay more, the last group of people you have to blame are those who make the transactions.

Well said, censorship-resistant transactions, not censorship-resistant spam.

No one is talking about censoring transactions, the talk is about making non-transactions (aka. spam) more difficult/expensive.

Not transactions, not Bitcoin.

5 days and counting...

What is more inspiring than money as far as miners are concerned?  Nothing is, mining pools want nothing more than to include as many transactions as possible, when they mine an empty block or one with just a few transactions it happens for a reason, also many people seem to think that there is a centralized mempool the all miners share, there isn't, I can just claim that "my" mempool is empty and mine only empty blocks.

This is a free market, subject to spam and biding, exactly how a decentralized system should be, there is nothing you can do to make it better.

The protocol doesn't agree with your definition of transaction.

the protocol has been softened.
the protocol has been weakened to allow crap data.

blackhatcoiner you sound more like doomad every day

if you enjoy that the protocol now allows crap data then you are not interested in the security of bitcoin and instead you are more interested in breaking bitcoin

the protocol 2009-2021 never allowed 1 tx to take upto 4mb of crap data bloat

if you like this new protocol change that is less than one year old. then you are very shameful and need to think about what matters most. you sucking up to personalities that want to break bitcoin. or .. start for once to care about bitcoin

because right now you dont seem to care about bitcoin

But there have never been any hard forks since then. Only soft forks. This means that only previously valid rules are made invalid. If it was invalid to do the same in 2009, and there have never been any hard forks, how come it be valid now? Also, there were a few transactions like - 54e48e5f5c656b26c3bca14a8c95aa583d07ebe84dde3b7dd4a78f4e4186e713 - in 2013 which did make usage of the blockchain as storage.

Except now they are pushing out a larger block that takes longer to propagate then an empty block. Sooner or later that is going to backfire on them when their large full block looses to an empty block. Probably not today or tomorrow or next week or next month, but sooner or later a pool that does not accept spam is going to put out a block that is empty since the mempool is just filled with spam at that moment. And someone is going to see it and solve the next block on top of it instead of the spam filled one.

The problem with a pool taking the 0 fee is that it's short term thinking.
OR as others have suggested they got BTC on the back end that they may or may not have shared with their miners.

Kind of like the VIAPool TX accelerator. They keep the money paid for that, the miners just get the lower fee that was in the TX itself.

-Dave

1. the protocol got SOFTENED to allow crap in.. this process of softening started mainly in mid 2017 and again in 2022

2. the 2013 tx you used is not where 1 tx has 1 signature area of crap.
nor where one input or output could spam hundreds of kb
 its instead a tx of hundreds of outputs
where each output had a byte limit.. (unlike now)

do you even read or do research? do you even know bitcoin history. or are you just pushing out propaganda to say bitcoin should continue to be softened until there are no good rules left and then promote your favoured subnetwork

you really are shameful in your methods.

That's the loophole that needs to be closed.

FYI: Just now I have incorporated your definition as a revision in the Satoshi per byte (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Satoshi_per_byte) wiki page.

---

People here are saying the protocol is getting harder / softer towards allowing stuff respectively, but my observations show that protocol development has pretty much been almost a deadweight as hardly anything changes inside of it.

That isn't to say that it's becoming harder, because it has really been at "almost impossible" for a long time now, but expect to see 5+ year wait times if you want your feature added into the protocol.

another game at play is the mempool utility
by having these 4mb bloat tx. where it only requires 75 bloat tx in mempool to then push out normal tx from being stored in mempools of normal nodes.. thus pushing the fee up of the remaining tx that get allowed to stay in mempools

yep a mempool ends up having at extremes just 75 pending transactions of 4mb each

..
think about it this way

legacy tx of 1in 2out is ~226bytes
meaning a mempool can have ~1.3m tx waiting
vs the extreme of only 75 memes with no normal tx waiting..

but both instances being 300mb waiting

..
also due to the meme spam of a 4mb tx not counting the spam(witness) as premium fee
EG if filling 4mb (4000000bytes) they should pay 4000000sats(0.04btc($1k)) as a minimum of 1sat/byte
but they are not paying $1k minimums. they are paying alot less than 1sat/byte thus under $1k if it was 4mb

emphasis again:
due to the cludgy code of cores decision of how core wants to count bytes
these memes appear are premium to stay in mempools.. and so outclass normal transactions paying more then 1sat/byte.. but reality is they are paying less than 1 sat/byte

heres one example
while mempools are trimming transactions below 5sat/byte at the moment(mempools of 300mb limit)
heres a tx that is 0.5sat/byte
https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/transactions/btc/df1d11d12d703bc3187407843bd82db684182cdccf2b156c7ce3d29b492154cc
that has been sitting in the mempools(of higher storage) for 6 days (since the 8th of march)
and found its way into a block

meaning this one tx has been aiding in keeping out hundreds of thousands of normal tx from remaining in mempools of normal nodes

thus although real world the spammy memes pay less than 1sat per byte. they are kept in mempools and normal payments of more then 1sat per byte get trimmed out of mempools when mempools get full

4 sat/b is currently the bottom for transactions and what used to take 1 now takes 10 just like the thread title says. And yeah there is a pool involved in the spam. Will others join the spam fest to make Bitcoin look bad and promote their tokens alt networks as the "solution"? Mine for spam?

I fear it's actually much more than that. I've sent ~$70 earlier today and paid ~$1.30 in fees (10 or 11 sat/b I don't remember precisely) and guess what? The transaction hasn't been confirmed yet! I paid 1 sat/b for similar tx before the ordinals were launched. I feel like I'm actually sponsoring some teen creating zillions of monkey pics hoping to get rich quick.  ;D

I have been "trying" to push through a small non-crucial transaction for 2$ at a fee rate of 1 sat/vbyte. I think it has been like 6 days already. 
I am already missing those nights I could send the cheapest as possible without having to worry about getting my stuff rejected.  :P
Alas, one truly does not know what one has, until one loses it.

Not gonna lie, I am feeling quite tempted to diversify my portfolio with some Litecoin in order to cope with this, until gets more bearable (assuming it won't get worse, though).

Luckily most wallets would have the option to bump the fee and push the transaction through.

I'm surprised that yours hasn't been rejected after 6 days. Can anyone explain how/when low-fee transactions get rejected from the mempool? I don't suppose there's a fixed time, but probably more of new transactions pushing out the old ones when the mempool is full etc? Or will most wallets keep re-broadcasting it until it gets confirmed?

A censorship resistant,  borderless, permitionless and pseudo anonymous is still very cheap even when the mempool is full and the price is higher than 20/30 sat/vbyte.

Try to make a swift and wait for 4-5 business day after the bank authorization

I think it depends on the configuration of the node which the transaction was broadcast to, if you check this webpage:

https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#BTC,24h,weight

You can see that Bitcoin was two buttons or options, BTC and BTC(Default).
The default configuration of the Bitcoin client seems to admit a maximum size for the mempool of 300 MB, before it starts to purge transactions which have stayed unconfirmed around 14 days in the mempool limbo.  :)

If anyone has a better explanation, feel free to correct me.  ;)

There are many mempools and each of them can set their own (different) times to drop unconfirmed transactions. 14 days is likely a common default settings for mempools but not all of them use that parameter.

14 days is estimated from retarget algorithm of difficulty after each 2016 blocks. With average block time is 10 minutes, it takes about 14 days to have one difficult retarget.

Similar to trading as we can use default parameter for many indicators which give us default parameter at 14 but we can customize it if we want.

Yeah, I usually use mempool.space to figure out the best fee. and after reading your post it's crazy that you are using 1 sat/byte.

I always use above 15 sat/byte even tho Im using segwit address to make transactions. I hear there is Layer 2 on bitcoin network called stack and its hype right now. and bitcoin only 1 MB per block that drives the fee going crazy.

at the time i write there is 60K transaction unconfirmed
https://i.ibb.co/bPSGC8G/1.png (https://imgbb.com/)

the best right now is using above 20sat to get fast confirmation or using Fee bumped if the transaction is already broadcasted.

Yes, a bit after that post, the spam increased:

https://i.ibb.co/4NWYpRD/mempool.png (https://ibb.co/4NWYpRD)

Since the beginning we have been warning that leaving this abuse/exploit alone and do nothing can only lead to a repeat of 2018 or worse... But they don't listen. Worse, certain self proclaimed miner with an elite attitude ridicule us in the dev discussion thread.

Why? because they know spamming works, it makes them money, so they will push it. More spam, less and slower actual transactions, the spam must go on, they don't want bitcoin, but bitasset, and help promote their altcoin which the leading spam pool is spearheading, yadda yadda.

They simply found a sustainable way to damage Bitcoin and are executing it.
And of course, other spammers are joining, they want a cut of the pie too...

These days I noticed that there was a jump on the number of unconfirmed transactions in the mempool as well.
It catches my attention because it seems that after that sudden increase the number of transactions has done nothing but increase in a steady lineal pace.

Is there a chance some ill-intended actor is already spamming with network with the sole purpose of halting non-ordinal transactions?
Because, I feel it is quite unlikely this is a normal behavior.

I could be wrong, though.

I did a 14 sat/b tx to fund a lightning channel, that was hours ago just to receive some tip... So much for instant payments. Sure once opened it should work that way, but here is another real world example of letting spammers run rampant.

Whenever i do make out some transactions then i do always look at on mempool.space just like on what most members or posters on this thread which it is really just that right.You could really be able
to find out on what are the suggested fees (sat/byte) which you would use whether you do like it for it to be included on next block or into the next one or something like that.
Of course we cant really be able to know on how far it would goes considering that miners would be always prioritizing into those people who do put up huge fees compared
to those who had just put up 1sat/byte.  :D

Yeah, thanks god I'm free and no longer depend on a banker guy. Now I have to wait when a 15 yo acne-covered teen sitting in his parents basement gets tired of creating gazillions of monkey pics (or even worse, something like this: https://www.cryptodickbutts.com/) and lets me push my tx at only x10 the price I used to pay before this madness started! I guess I should be grateful! ;D

Yeah, I'm still waiting for the lightning channel; no tip for me today, thanks spammers.

he says he's going to mint 5400 for series 3. i wonder if he's putting that on bitcoin or ethereum  :o

If you were just trying to receive a tip, you could have opened up a custodial LN wallet and then transferred it to yourself later.

There's always solutions to problems caused by "high fees." Seems like people would just rather complain than consider them.

The weirdest is when people believe their complaints actually have some sort of effect on the situation.

That doesn't truly change the fact that it's ANNOYING, and the fees are more than what they were before Ordinals, doesn't it? I don't want to offend anyone who develops NFT projects, and/or collects/trades NFTs, but you told Artemis3 to move his transactions offchain. The same can be adviced for those dick pics and fart sounds in the blockchain, so in my personal opinion, move them offchain.

Well, he wanted to use LN which is offchain. It wasn't my idea, it was his. I'm providing an actionable solution to an easily solvable problem. What you are offering is just more opinions and complaints which doesn't actually help solve anything.

Well it is obviously a solution but it is definitely not a practical solution if you just want to send a small tip to somebody. What would really solve this matter would be a bigger block size. If people forgot satoshi even specifically stated that the block size should be increased in the future!

OK, I merely had a different impression.


Opinions? Annoyed because of paying for higher fees, and waiting for a confirmation longer than usual is not merely an opinion, ser. It's truly annoying.

Complaints? Please read through my post history and tell me where I had a negative opinion about specifically Ordinals. In fact, I always try to give everyone, especially the newbies, a non-biased/objective viewpoint about it. I also said it's remarkable, BUT the things that can be built out of Ordinals could open opportunities to attack Bitcoin.

Right now I feel like it's a flashback from 2017! Bitcoin Cash, big blocks does it ring a bell? Actually, why don't that ordinals guy just put his dickbutts on a Bitcoin Cash blockchain? It's probably empty anyway!  ;D

Custodial lightning wallet was exactly the solution to that particular problem.


Technically the block size is already bigger, 4 MB as was tested and proven not too long ago. If you're looking for an even bigger blocksize there's two other coins that have "Bitcoin" in their name for that.


Indeed its a smaller-sized blockchain than BTC. That's not a bad idea but alas as Bitcoin Cash does not have SegWit its an impossibility, at least in the form it uses on BTC. They are all over Litecoin because it has both SegWit and Taproot. Peeps even tried it for Dogecoin with P2SH scripting and called it Doginals but its no fun b/c the image sizes are super tiny (1.5-10kb).

No i don't, someone just offered a LN tip and i just gave it a "quick try", and after it finally opened the channel (the following day), and providing an "invoice request" it didn't work for whatever reason. I don't like lightning, kick those spammers out so that everyone can use Bitcoin for normal transactions again.

The irony of the thing is you telling people to go "custodial". No, the solution is kick the spammers out, things simply worked fine before the Feb exploit.

That's not irony. It was the solution to your problem. Just keep the tip in a custodial wallet until you are ready to open your own Lightning channel and then send it to yourself.


That's not a solution. How are you going to do that? Have you written a BIP regarding limiting Taproot script length and submitted it for consideration on GitHub? Have you attempted to contact anybody who can potentially do anything about it?

Talking about the issue is the first step. It's important! Discussion helps to clarify the issue and generate ideas. What you're saying now is: shut up and do something but real quiet so nobody would find out. No! We're going to talk about this nasty issue and we're going to do it LOUD!  8)

We will bring it up until someone who can do something, does. For example the patch for nodes to filter the spam, that's a start. Something more "proper" needs to be written, sure, perhaps YOU can do something about it?

many have tried but not so many have got passed the moderation gateways to even get anything close to a proper fix listed as a formal bip

its not as simple as just write a bip and have it listed in cores bip list sandbox. there is a hop, skip, jump routine required to do a 'long jump' of landing in the sandbox of core bips

do you not find it strange how god-mode achow is trying too hard to edit the moderation policies of not just this forum but also of the IRC, mailing list and github

and its not "consideration on github" its 'consideration by 6 hierarchy highly privileged  maintainer entitled devs of CORES github repo'..
whom consider things and reject ideas at the moderated discussion phase before it even gets to the BIP list stage.

you know the central point of failure guys that opened up the exploit but have not done a thing in months to undo it themselves and not allowing formal submissions of fixes.. because fixes go against their CORE roadmap. so they try to avoid fixes even at the discussion phase.


these exploits have been slowly opened up more and more layer by layer since the anyonecanspend debates of 2016 (opcode activation/utility issues)

but instead of fixing the issues. they find work around to allow the issues to persist while wasting more time moderating out discussions of issues

i wouldn't call 10,000 bytes "super tiny". you can store alot of data in 10,000 bytes. that might be a good way to backup important data - encrypted of course. wonder how much it costs.  :o

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying actually doing something to attempt to rectify what you consider to be a problem will go miles further than just sitting around here basically spamming the same complaints about it over and over.

And you're not even loud. Almost nobody will read this except for some sig campaigners and franky1. This place is a collapsing thought bubble, from which a little more air escapes each year.


Its tiny for image data. 10k is the theoretical maximum although I'm not sure anybody has actually done that yet. Most of them have a max size of 1.5k and look like this full-sized:

https://i.imgur.com/10s5OeN.png

https://doginals.com/shibescription/9ca704a862eb1fea235212804e5dd951409a91dd93a62b4888788788b1625e76i0

But this monkey is 28740 bytes
https://doginals.com/shibescription/479332346fb7043d41520d9d291df653eca85f54964f75d7d4e6cb8a4590cc20i0
the image is 720x704 pixels so that's a pretty much full size image.  :o

1-10 persons is not loud, 100-1000 is louder, 1000-1000000 is loud enough. Everyone was having fun ridiculing Satoshi and his ideas in 2009-2010 but it's not funny anymore now?

I guess size isn't significant for retarded NFT buyers. Cryptodickbutts are also quite small. It's all about the hype.  ;D

yep this forum category is not for coming up with critical proposals that get implemented. its not cores github and god-mode achow ensures only those ass kissing cores existing roadmaps get discussed in this forums D&T category

this "bitcoin discussion" category is a discussion forum category to make OTHER people aware of things about bitcoin

if core devs need to rely on this forum category to find out about exploits they caused. we really are in trouble..

its about informing everyone else of dev exploits and problems

the devs have their own hierarchical platforms for them to discuss what plans they have for what they want bitcoin to do next. and those platforms are highly moderated,

so yes for critical proposals, this forum is a collapsing thought bubble

but as a source of information for the crowd, its a growing platform

i know people think twitter is the main source for information. but there is a heck of alot more social drama and ICO scamming and fake narrative games played on twitter than here

twitter is the advert for the noobs to first hear about bitcoin. they then come here for the information,, and then if they kiss enough roadmap applicable ass they can then get recruited/evolve into being allowed to converse with the devs in an echo chamber of single mindedness development

oh and yes i do agree there is like 12 ass-kissing wannabe fangirls of core on this forum that idolise these exploits and defend devs.. but are not successfully getting recruited into being their official PR team because they are still penny pinching for income via sig spamming or merit cycling each other

but with all that said. this forum is a discussion/talk forum. where yes we are free to discuss complaints. because complaints are not allowed in the actual dev platform. they don not want or like to be scrutinised in their moderated platform. (they have a kiss ass only echo chamber) which is another flaw they caused to themselves

that sounds like a strange situation indeed. i'm assuming all 12 of them are pro-ordinals for sure. but maybe not? :o what's the benefit of being on the "PR team" do they get chocolate chip cookies or something?

blockstream and sister companies chaincode labs and brinks do not seed-fundraise hundreds of millions for nothing. most of the wannabe fangirls are not getting a share of promoting blockstream products because they are still penny pinching sig-spam crap for less than minimum wage of western countries
(if they were successfully paid in salary terms they would not need to be scraping the bottom of the income barrel for small income)

those in the merit cycle game get paid to rent their avatar out, again for less than minimum wage..

both of which shows they are not getting a satisfactory salary to not need to be penny pinching/advertising risky systems, scams and things that get people in trouble

I don't think all 12 are pro-spam. Its pointless to mention ordinals since that's only one of the spam sources. This is not just against ordinals, but the whole spam "ecosystem". Spam abuse was demonstrated publicly by them first in a large scale, that's their merit, devs doing nothing about it, is another matter...

And yes the people should know.

Lets just say my lightning experience was less than satisfactory, compared to a normal transaction, the layers of complexity for end users is a magnitude higher. I basically ended spending 5k sats to get a 10k sats tip in the end, and there were like 3 normal transactions involved, opening a channel, swapping because not enough funds, whatever. And guess what, those were affected by the current spam traffic situation. People can't just tip you a random amount like you can with a normal transaction, it mustn't exceed certain amount the person giving the tip is unaware of. One way was creating the invoice with the amount so it can warn you if its not enough with the channel you opened. Yeah, this is not Bitcoin...

yes there are many types of spam

the main types are:
spending every block where funds just go back to self.
some call it address hopping/tumblers where someone wants to create enough taint jumps to appear that their funds are not associated with the same wallet, even though its just movements done with the same wallet with over XX+ different addresses of that same wallet

many out many in
this is where someone spends like 10,000sat+ to make 100 outputs+ of 100sat+. and then spend said 100+utxo of 100sat+ to combine it back to 10,000sat+... and repeat
where its obviously not being done to pay 100+ random people. but done instead just to coinsplit-coinjoin

sending dust amounts
these are the transactions that send dust/useless amounts to famous addresses

bloat transactions
making large transactions that have no reason for being so large EG ordinal memes or op_returns that have nothing to do with ownership transfer and just about publishing dead weight data of no use for bitcoin

right now the most spammy situation we are dealing with is the ordinal meme spam

its not just having the bloat on the blockchain. its that at the PRE-BLOCK zero confirm relay. these bloated tx are filling mempools amd causing other transactions of low fee to get dropped by peoples mempools thus causing everyone else to pay more just to even get left in mempool and relayed around the network to eventually land in a block

Referring to the Ordinals Attack as a "meme spam" is diminishing the attack and is very misleading. The Ordinals is not an attack because they are injecting "memes" into the blockchain, it is a spam because bitcoin blockchain is not a cloud storage service.

In other words even if they were publishing something like the cure for cancer on bitcoin blockchain using Ordinals Attack method, it still would have been a malicious attack.

I very much doubt this. Their opinions on the subject are probably far more nuanced than anybody posting here. Unlike us, they are taking time to consider all the ramifications of potential coding adjustments to counter "blockchain spam," or if any adjustments are necessary at all.

They are carefully weighing the pros and the cons of any potential changes instead of just mindlessly repeating their first impression opinion for the 40th time.

 ::)

Is that the new social drama? There are 12 "ass-kissing wannabe fangirls of Core" who are probably "Pro-Ordinals" too? That's confusing, because from the information I collected, the leading Core developers like Adam Back and Luke DashJr are anti-Ordinals. But no one really believes what franky101 posts unless you're a franky-fan-girl. Read his trust-rating. 8)

windfury. grow up.
YOU know that since 2018 it was YOU and doomad that went crying to gmax when your sales pitches got  destroyed, which you lot didnt like.. which got the negative trust rating against me because you didnt like what i had to say.. and for 5 years you have been recruiting idiots into your echo chamber to keep stiring the social drama distractions.

so you and your forum daddy are the idiots that are now using your own actions to pretend im wrong because of YOU group saying im wrong previously.
you can only quote "franky is wrong because" where you then link your fanclub of echos just saying "franky is wrong because", but has never shown actual valid data, code, logic, math,stats that actually prove any point on your side


yet what i say can be backed up by code/blockdata ..
i find it foolish how after so many years you do not even bother to try to read code or blockdata to form opinions and instead you prefer to quote humans as your source where those you source are snake oil salesmen trying to push people off the network and weaken the network and make the network expensive and annoying to use

all of your desires and beleifs are only backed up by whatever doomad and his group told you and you are the idiot that follows him like a daddy where you lack the research of actual code/blockdata.

try to listen less to an idiot that makes you look like an idiot and finally take some time to do some research away from being a blind sheep that cries when you hear something you dont like, that makes your group look stupid

.....
fangirls of core is different to the corporate employer of devs and a dev that is no longer a maintainer of core.. so not sure why you are mentioning luke jr and adam back. as they are not hands on nor important anymore

i know you are a fan of them. but they are not involved in the day-to-day. heck luke Jr is making patches away from core github because he knows the actual maintainers will reject his proposals to include the patch internally within core


the current maintainers of core. is the group that are doing nothing to stop this crap... and rejecting any outside fixes being added to core.. and moderating out any discussion that may lead to diverting from their roadmap plans
and its their fans like your forum-daddy that are excited by it, your forum-daddy loves ordinals and loves moderating out any discussion that goes against the roadmap of central group, because it helps his schemes of making people hate using bitcoin so he can promote that people should use other networks.. and you know this

if you say so but so far i haven't heard a peep out of them at least here on this forum so they must be doing this under heavy secrecy... :o i just thought they didn't care about the issue at all.

We disagree a lot of the time and that's fine, but one thing I like about you larry is you are willing to at least be reasonable. TBH I really don't know what they think about inscriptions, just seen a couple impartial murmurings from them about it on the mail list so far. But I do know our shadowy group of supercoders has been relatively successful in the past at shepherding Bitcoin development down a well-constructed path.

It will be really interesting to see what changes they propose/enact (if any) to combat inscription "spam."

This may surprise everybody but if they decide to somehow place new limitations on it, it wouldn't upset me.

In fact, placing new limitations now would be great for everyone: normies would enjoy fast low-fee transactions and NFT freaks would finally get rich as the price of already minted ordinals would skyrocket. It's a win-win situation.  8)

Well there's already 637,000+ of them  :D

But assuredly a cap would retain some value for some of them.

Most of the rest will trend toward zero, cap or not.

And again, despite what anybody wants to believe, I'm not invested in any of it. Never inscribed, never bought, never sold, don't care. Its just been highly entertaining to watch.

i'm always willing to listen to well reasoned posts like yours have been. i don't know everything (clearly) but i do appreciate when someone like you takes their time to input what they can on a topic. it always helps.   ;D

i can't say i disagree. we'll have to trust that they know what the right thing to do is.

Yes, this is what i want to see.

---

There is a new spammer, something BRC-20 which seems to be a type of smart contracts. So as we warned in February, things are getting worse. Like they said: "Anything hex will be uploaded, Ordinals paved the way". That's a honest spammer, that never cared about Bitcoin.

Time is ticking, spam is increasing...

can you give an example link to an inscription like this? just curious what is going on  

not gonna lie though apparently someone uploaded a video game as an ordinal some type of first person shooter. wonder how much space that took up.  :o

This isnt something new anymore and this could definitely happen on Bitcoin transaction where the entire network is really that clogged up.Transaction prioritized are to those who do set out higher fees
which miners would really be having no doubt on processing it first than into those who had set out 1sat/byte which is understandable. This is why if you dont really like on paying up huge fees
then it would really be just right that you should wait but if you are in a hurry on pushing up such transaction then you would be needing to pay up more fees.
Lets just accept this scalability issue of Bitcoin yet this had been the main issue ever since.

This has nothing to do with scalability at all. In fact none of the major fee spikes in bitcoin history had anything to do with scalability. They have always happened because of spam attacks. For example the biggest and longest period in which fees went up and stayed up were in 2017 and it was mainly because of the largest spam attack against bitcoin network in its entire history.
Today we are seeing another form of spam attack hence the increased fees.

"Bitcoin stamps" joins the spam fest...

Quoting the Trust Machines spammer:

https://twitter.com/trustmachinesco/status/1643354099507683328


So there you have it. Not only they openly declare their intention to spam, they also challenge the developers...

I think it is about time we start a list of shame (spammers) so at least people know who is sabotaging Bitcoin.

This is ridiculous! I can see incoming transactions with 15sat/byte, 21sat/byte even 25sat/byte fees! My last transaction between my wallets took 2-3 days and I had to bump fee 4 times! This new Bitcoin Stamps spam seems to have amplified the Ordinals spam. I wonder how soon core devs will start doing something to eliminate this spam.  :o

Metagood has also joined the spam attack against Bitcoin. "NFTs of jewelry eggs designed by Bugatti and Asprey worth 20k USD"...

i wouldn't worry about "stamps". no one is going to want to pay the huge fees to store any reasonable image on that crap. only thing you'll see there is pixellated junk. but yeah they want their monkeys being stored in the utxo set. how nice.  

i guess P2SH wasn't so great after all though... :o

funny how all this is supposed to be decentralized yet these bitcoin nft projects rely on .io websites or .com websites to showcase all the monkeys and if those websites went away, people would probably stop using them

LOL, that's not what they said at all.

This has been doable since 2015 via Counterparty; the whole "on-chain data" craze only became a thing recently. This is a Counterparty Broadcast of a tiny image file, about 9.5kb, from Aug 2015:

https://xchain.io/tx/299585

This is what it looks like when you decode it (also magnified):

https://xchain.io/img/cards/OLGA.jpg

It uses 172 outputs. Nobody cared about it at the time, but the person behind it is now widely considered one of the pioneers of NFTs as we know them. Also because he made OLGA, the first 1/1 Counterparty token (thus a non-fungible token, or NFT).

https://xchain.io/asset/OLGA

so they sent two cents to like 173 different addresses and then later on they transferred those same two cents back to one of the original funding addresses. imagine that. sending $0.02 worth of bitcoin 173 times not once but twice... :o

Actually they are unspendable, they just sit there for eternity. And it was actually less than 2 cents at the time. Nowadays it would be a fairly expensive operation.

The saving grace about Stamps is the stampers are forced to pay more of a "fair" fee as it does not rely on taking advantage of the witness data discount.

https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/address/m-0fd46773b2543ccb2ae663ff13fdfb71

Balance
0BTC
0USD
Total received
0.000078BTC
0.02USD
Total spent
0.000078BTC
0.09USD


not for this one  :o

and its unprunable and sits in the utxo set forever?  hopefully that doesn't contribute to utxo set bloat. but i guess we'll see.

since stamps is more proof of ownership than ordinals, i wonder how they get "transferred". maybe a new copy of the monkey gets made and stuck in someone else's address? now there's 2 monkeys taking up space a new monkey on every new sale. blockchain bloat might be an issue if that was the case but it seems these stamps nfts are very small images.

Oh yeah, you're right, wonder how he did that. He must have swept all of them somehow... don't understand how since its not a real bitcoin address.



No, just like Ordinals, the "inscription" only happens one time. They use Counterparty, which is a protocol for Bitcoin token transfer. Unlike Ordinals, sats aren't moved around during token transfer (or other processes: issuance, dividend, supply creation, supply locking, destructions, etc)... its all just encoded data in non-standard transactions.

its an old style multisig address thats how

m-0fd46773b2543ccb2ae663ff13fdfb71 translates to 4E6wXFuMixFc8LU8n5eUUG1FPY71BHZRfy
or splits to:
12niGJ1B66V668fTmgNF1gLhvH94VfabW1
18MXco4a3y8eLFcpsqV6ASpqjUxeVVEGg1
1HbJtt8hm7TGd2DhHvxuw4BRdZsd2iuxYp

you just then need to sign by using the keys (EG a 1-of-3 using the key of 1hbJtt8hm address)

and yes all the 173 multisigs have the 1hbJtt8hm in them so its easy to sign a multisig

and if you take the tx back by one taint. you will see the creator funded those multisigs using the 1hbJtt8hm address using normal legacy spend of that address so he has control of the key for the 1hbJtt8hm address to then use as a signer for the multisigs that have the address as part of the combined multisig

yeah i did notice that the 1hb address funded all those 173 strange looking addresses and then apparently they got reconsolidated back into that address. never heard of "old style" multisig addresses and i even googled "m- bitcoin address" but i couldn't seem to find anything. so you're smarter than google franky!  

ok. that sounds kind of complicated but as long as it's not creating duplicate monkeys everytime a sale gets made i guess that's the important thing. because to have 100 monkey pics of the same monkey just because it had been sold 100 times during its existence would not be ideal.  :o

OK well that's never been the case in any sort of NFT protocol ever, on any blockchain. So you can relax because that's not what's happening. What we are seeing is people inscribing the same image over and over, don't understand the purpose of that, but it can't be stopped (for now).

There was an idea for a protocol that floated around for a while that involved using signatures to prove ownership of IPFS IDs and the ID was transferred in each transaction, but that's hardly the same thing as recreating image data in each transaction.

m- is "strange" because its the explorer software putting the "m-" prefix. other explorers would translate it to a "4 prefix" which is less strange and pre-dates by a few months the "3" multisig prefix which became the common multisig
its not me being smart. its instead just knowing more about bitcoin and certain people on this forum using poorly expressive explorers, thus they are prevented from knowing more..


yep even blockchain.info became lame when their "more details" feature just became a lame json expression of a transaction which does not convert raw binary tx data to hex or into proper readable information (their json details put "null" into some of the json results(facepalm)). explorers are better when they know of all key formats and also read the binery/hex better to express the results in human readable form better (for those that dont want to parse binary/hex data via their full node and convert the manual way)

some other explorers do express tx data better. so its just a case of people finding a explorer that fits their needs


well having a dead meme stored somewhere.. but have a hash of the dead meme store. where the HASH is the thing that then moves instead of the meme itself, can show proof of transfer without the major bloat, because if only the hash moves to only one output which moves to only one child and grandchild tx. then becomes a proof of transfer without the main bloat of moving whole files

as for "signature" well a base signature cannot be bruted to include the hash of file. but the "script" that explains how the signature is processed EG showing a 1 of 2 multisig where 1 is the signing key and 2 is the hash. would include the hash in the script process to signing proof. thus the hash would be in the blockchain, which then shows a taint path each time its spent


EG if you know the file hash. you choose a key you want as part of a multisig. and join the hash and key to create a multisig you then spend to that multisig to get the multisig into the blockchain. then when spending from it. each buyer gives you their receiver key. the seller joins the buyers receiver key with the file hash to give the file hash to the receiver. where the receiver can spend using 1 of 2 signing process. and they do this when its time for them to pass the hash to the next person by doing the same thing combining the net buyers key to the hash to create a multisig.

the file itself does not need to be in a bitcoin blockchain as long as bitcoin registers the ownership transfer

ofcourse bitcoin does not have any locks to ensure the original owners cant just later put a hash into another recipient and claim the first one is wrong(ordinals cant prove anyone ever took ownership, so even easier for ordinals to scam people ). but thats where legally the timestamp comes into play.. first sight  of hash wins and its that chain of hashes that are the default path. because there is a clear seen path of hashes per spend


as for worries of UTXO bloat
utxoset does not store all keys of a multisig. so even if a multisig is 1 of 1 1of 2 or x of 15 the utxoset just saves the same length of output

yes spending a mutlisig utxo uses more data on the blockchain rather than a legacy address. but a 1 of 2 needing 2 key lengths + 1 sig is less bloaty then then transfering whole files

unlike ordinals that do not have a chain of hashes of the file or the file itself thus are nothing like any method of NFT as they miss out on anything that can be considered as proof of ownership/transfer

Then we need to ddos the sh*t out them!  ;D Let's start a new trend: visit a website http://retardeddickbuttmonkeynftlover and get a unique, super rare and valuable monkey pic from me!  ;D That would give them a dose of their own medicine!  ;D

i'd say this 4 prefix is an undocumented feature of bitcoin. i couldn't seem find much information on it. strange. but yet you know alot about it.  :o

hopefully not.

how would you ever be able to stop it though? not like bitcoin is going to ever have some type of content matching system that deals with ordinals or any other "nft" implementation. as i've mentioned in the past, the only thing gives ordinals any value is their inscription number because anyone can come along and reupload the same exact content but their number will be larger. whether you believe in the "i came first so i'm more valuable" idea, well that's another story.

it was called P2MS and was first used in january 2012. but due to a few flaws, people went with P2SH instead by april 2012

people still used p2ms now and again over the years. but most just used P2SH

years before devs messed around with where sigscripts sits in raw tx data. sigscripts(aka witnesses as they want to call them now) only had 200byte then 500byte limits back in those days. and now we are stuck with them being upto 3999000byte and the bloat due to that silly decision is having impacts on many parts of bitcoin. including mempools and fee pressure


the answer is simple as of block 7XX,XXX limit the script lengths. thus reject bloaty transactions altogether

ordinals dont have value due to that..
yes the utxo of blockreward might have a special number. but once its spent. that number is actually lost due due to logic and bitcoins monetary policy, ''first sats"get spent. meaning because mining pools take a cut of value. and they record their income FIRST in the coinbase tx technically the mining pools get first sats back into the block reward and any underlying tx listed in a block is secondary thus not receipt of a first sat

yep a story for patent/copyright attorneys to debate in a court room with a suspected infringer

Once again, the Ordinals protocol does not care about your personal interpretation of things. Transfer occurs according to a rigid set of rules and the rules exist without your permission. It cares about "franky1's bitcoin monetary policy" as much as it does your definition of an NFT, which is not at all.

I already went over this with you in the another thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5446983.msg62013978#msg62013978) where you ignored my detailed explanation of an ordinal transfer in action. You misunderstood how it worked, I explained it to you, and then you ignored the explanation.

I honestly don't understand why you enjoy fighting logic so much but I will continue to correct your misinformation for the sake of others.

nutty its not franky policy at all

its actually bitcoin policy..
the blockchain data (real stuff) does not care about ordinals idea's .. and ordinals ideas are not even proven by just looking at blockdata.

you seem too tied into the adoration of ordinals for you to pretend you are not involved you sound like you are financially incentivised to keep the ordinal dream alive.

casey does not have hard rules because those hard rules have no data foundation to strengthen/solidify the rules
they are just dreams casey made up to call certain outputs whatever he likes but if you ignore his dream and just look at the real world data and see that his dreams dont match reality. you will realise you are in dreamland

dreams can change without impacting the real world... and so can caseys idea.. get it yet

standard economic policy. real world data.. logic. all debunk caseys dreams..
yet your diatribe of kiss-assery to adore casey is not proof that his idea actually has value.. all i see is that your a kiss ass loyalist trying to scam people for value of things that are not as worth as much as you pretend they are.


as for you pretending in another topic that you debunked me with your detailed example of how it all works


well going by your own example.. that 128tAax address is not even the FIRST OUTPUT of the spending of the blockreward

thus you debunked yourself with your own example in the first transfer

and also.. even if all decendant transactions had taint of first output(which they dont)
you are also still ignoring that when making a transaction you are giving a tx fee to a mining pool and giving the REMAINDER to destinations. meaning mining pool gets first cut of a spend
and heaven forbid should you dare read blockdata. mining pools receive their tx fees at the top of a block far before the list of transactions showing the destinations of where remainder funds go
so again math, logic. data. common sense. prevail to debunk you in many ways. and thats not franky policy its just real world stuff

stop kissing ass to someone with a bad idea just because it makes you money. and then stop pretending your not financially involved or profiting from the crap idea

wut

nothing you say makes any sense... when you repeat the same misinformed nonsense ad nauseum, all you're doing is demonstrating that you have no desire to learn or research

the system works perfectly as is, there's no reason for it to change. just because you don't understand how something works doesn't mean it doesn't work.

nobody seems to have any problems with how it works except for you and whoever you can convince that your nonsense has any merit.


Edit to address franky1's edit:

franky: the first input in this transaction (https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/3d8bf3ff4137ba65da395e9d545eb53c230b58411f4289a3c2a037f2c64fa20b?i=3) is for 5 BTC. It thus includes the BTC from 128tA...


This is according to franky1's rules for how Ordinals should work, which again, nobody cares about.


I'm not pretending anything. I've never purchased or inscribed a single Ordinal, as I've told you for the 4th time now. I'm just countering your misinformative bullshit.

But with "true consensus" of course! Didn't you know it? franky1 is the father of true consensus, which consists of various notions, like Bitcoin being not censorship-resistant, miners and users going along with franky1 explicitly*, developers needing permission from franky1 to code, etc. One solution he must have thought of is: rising the costs for such transactions, or even better: invalidating them altogether!

* btw, soft forks forbidden, they are an act of rape (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5380215.msg61489425#msg61489425), as he calls

inserting things without consent... just because you dont like how frank i have to be to get real world concepts into your head does not mean that you have to cry that i am using bad words. instead understand the concept.
its funny how you care more about how i say things rather then whats being said. if you cant understand the idea of consensus (consent of the masses)
if you cant understand why bitcoin was made. how it was made and the structures that were in place to make bitcoin work beautifully initially.
if you cant understand what bitcoin actually does and how..
 and instead you just wanna insert your worms in any hole you can find no matter how it affects others.. thats your problem

i do laugh that you pretend real world data does not exist even though millions can read it. and you pretend its just me.. you really are ignorant to real life and common sense.

just admit your sales pitches have failed and stop trying to act like your dreams are real even when real world data can prove otherwise

i fully understand that you as sponsored promoters doing this for income do not want to or are not willing to read real world data.. and i do know and fully understand you only want to kiss each others ass and be an echo chamber thinking that if you hear an echo of your dreams that must mean the dream is real... but thats not how the real world works

maybe one day you will wake up and realise where you have gone wrong in your manifestations of your warped reality. and maybe oneday you might just get caught in your own traps of careless disregard for others
either way. your dreams wont continue forever. so be prepared

Yes, there has been a recent spike in transaction fees and slower processing times on the Bitcoin network. This is due to a combination of factors, including increased demand for Bitcoin transactions, changes in the mining difficulty and hash rate of the web, and other market and economic factors. It's always a good idea to stay up-to-date on the latest developments and trends in the Bitcoin world and to be prepared for potential changes and fluctuations in the network.

well, i'm not saying i think they have any value at all but apparently some people are willing to pay higher if the inscription number is a low one like under 100,000 and even more if it's under 1000. not that i think it has any value but some people must think that way. whether that makes any sense or not i guess it doesn't matter. all that matters is if someone thinks it makes sense. but at some point seems like someone is going to buy at the top.  :o

how do you take someone to court if all you know is their bitcoin address? and their monkey on the blockchain...

https://images2.imgbox.com/48/36/HCXwqbD9_o.png (https://images2.imgbox.com/48/36/HCXwqbD9_o.png)

With the ample breath we got this past week when they stopped, and now with their return, i think it has been sufficiently demonstrated how much have power they have to sabotage Bitcoin. It can only get worse with more spammers joining. And when an actual tx traffic surge comes (for example some exchange moving things around from cold wallets, etc) combine it with the spammers and...

interesting graph, yes it does appear that for a few consecutive days, they stopped uploading monkeys to bitcoin. strange. maybe they were reloading their coinbase accounts.  after all, it takes money to make money... :o

well those types of people dont know what value is in the first place. i see many people that still think VALUE is whatever people ask.. but its not.. they confuse price with value
values are based on actual utility, features, benefits, which then when working out costs and such can be financially measured. and then add on a premium for profit you then get to a price.

its then for others to also evaluate the features, benefits and utility and calculate their own cost and speculative premium they are willing to pay. where both sides eventually come to a mutual agreement

but if they are lied to about the utility/features. then they made bad valuation decisions and that hits them afterwards if they buy at the wrong price that is way above value


the person that created the monkey is not the perpetrator. its the real world people using their images to sell merch to the real world where copyright claims come in. and real world, seeing your creation being used by someone without your consent is where you track them and hand them cease and desist letters with warnings of court claims should they not desist

and yes. casey could one day pull the plug on his project. and claim there is no proof of ownership transfer on the blockchain and start suing anyone making claims that they own his monkeys where all the blockchain actually shows is casey made the monkeys and passed it to no one

and yes in the past in different sectors of industry some have done that. created a product pretended they gave rights to others to sell the product. let them sell it and then sue the end seller for lack of licence. because that was the whole scheme in the first place

..
anyway back to the topic

for it to all fall flat at the same time reveals that its not millions of random people making deadweight. but a small couple of people that just ran out of energy/funding, which is more revealing about that chart

if random people were doing it or more then a couple. then there would always be a persistent level of random memes.. but for the complete drop, well that shows only one idiot or a couple of idiots working together that are involved in the fee attack using memes as the weapon

Is there some practical way to gather information and find out whether this is indeed the sabotage work being carried up by a handful of people instead a whole meme community bloating the mempool?
I would say that it could take some analysis on the addresses that are minting ordinals, but the volume may be so high that it could take an actually company to run such operation. If this is just a bunch of people trying to mess with the ecosystem, imagine what could happen if some  anti-Bitcoin government with almost infinite resources decided to join the spam.  ::)

There is a long path ahead, it seems...

yeah, value and price are two different things. people selling their bitcoin ordinals hope the buyer will confuse the two though and think of them as being one in the same.



bitcoin is under a brc-20 spam attack lately it seems like: https://ordinals.com/inscriptions/1985780   :o

https://ordinals.com/inscription/07938984de137d6d2c756af5ae5950a25f3085bc9079e183852481eddc3804c3i0
{"p":"brc-20","op":"mint","tick":"#gua","amt":"1000"}


according to https://thebitcoinmanual.com/articles/brc-20-tokens/

BRC-20 tokens are rug-pull technology, and rest assured, once a market is made for this bitcoin-saved metadata, you’ll see people selling you overpriced JSON files for bitcoin.



one good way to get an idea is to look at the inscriptions themselves that are coming hot off the press. have the last few hundred been all of the same type? then it's probably the same person.

if no one does anything to stop it, then yeah it will be. when you make it cheap to abuse the network then that's kind of like asking for trouble...

What frightens me most... these attacks/spam tokens are evolving to cause max damage to the network. Like brc-20 is more spammy than ordinals. I'm not sure what core devs are waiting for? Mempool coming to a complete stall? That Taproot bug has to be fixed once and for all.

i think monkeys have become extinct now. the question is, are they really extinct or is this just a transitory period and they will not be held down permanently. only time will tell. but it's not looking good for them.

maybe the devs secretly leaked out this brc-20 crap to get rid of hairy monkeys. so they're working behind the scenes manning all stations... ;)

you can't keep a good monkey down though but there is some very heavy supression happening right now. you have to feel bad for the monkeys - almost. but just remember how abusive they were for the first 1 million or so ordinals and you quickly lose sympathy for them...