Agreed. People should really start putting Reference links on their negative feedback, without that, it can never become Trusted.
I saw the case OP mentioned: a Newbie dealing with another Newbie on scammer's paradise Telegram. They'll never learn.

It's full. That means it starts dropping transactions. Each node can use their own settings for this.

I wouldn't even know how to make a LN-payment to 30 people at once. That's a lot easier on-chain. And public payments are much more transparent.

I'd like to see an (experimental) campaign that pays within seconds after each post. LN's strength is not making large transactions to many people, it's making many small transactions. So it would be possible to automate it, and pay each qualifying post instantly (assuming the campaign members are good enough to know they're not going to spam).

Don't use "Normal" priority, I always thought that's just to prevent people from complaining about unconfirmed transactions. My Bitcoin Core shows 46 sat/vbye is enough for a 4 block target. Johoe looks about the same. So, in Mycelium, use Low-priority, and pick 49 sat. Or use a different wallet that allows more freedom to select exact fees.

For the record: striking out part of the address like this doesn't help to hide it.

I noticed the missing images last week. May I recommend TalkImg.com - Image hosting for BitcoinTalk?

I'll delete this post next time I see it.

Here's a backup:

Use the Trust system: leave negative feedback with a link to a post explaining what happened.

Thanks again for your flawless timing!

Do you really believe you can stop yourself from derailing this thread?

I call BS on this. Can you share how you "accelerated" this? I believe you have no power over confirmations.

This is the slippery slope I mentioned.

I'd choose adding a new board with certain restrictions over restricting existing boards.

I've seen similar suggestions before. Why not make use of the self-moderation feature? It could even be maintained by a user bot.

I did

Go for it. It looks like you did it already. We're only missing a few days of data (those straight lines look suspicious). Thanks!

Using the API created some new things to deal with (such as scientific notication, which didn't work with bc).
Tomorrow's update should work again
@n0nce: it'll be a few minutes later, I've added a delay between API-requests.

Unless you trust the sender, in that case you can accept it before it's confirmed.

Although true, for most practical applications 1 confirmation is enough. If it's a very large amount, 6 is enough.

As much as I appreciate the initiative, you're basically asking to stop using Bitcoin as a payment system. That's not good. The message shouldn't be that signature campaigns can't be paid because of transaction fees.
That being said: I always try to avoid making on-chain Bitcoin payments when fees are high

I don't mind, I'd say a discussion about what causes high fees fits within the scope of this topic.

@tranthidung: Cryptios needs an update too:

One could even argue that someone who's willing to pay $34 to send $0.15 can't be a spammer. "Normally", spam only works because it's very cheap to send in massive amounts. This blockchain-spam is quite unique. So this guy paying so much must have a very good reason for it. Or at least that's what he thinks....

I don't think a few percent is going to help, and I'm pretty sure they'd also fill it if blocks were 4 times bigger. It would just take a bit longer.

I live in a Western country, and I find $20 per transaction outrageous too. I make a couple dozen fiat payments per month, and can't do that in Bitcoin at this price. It means on-chain Bitcoin can't be used as a payment system for the masses (but we knew that already).

---

---

One thing I don't understand: why do fees jump from say 200 to say 300, and not to 201? Is this still the default of many wallets? You can be ahead of the rest with just 1 sat/vbyte, and by making 100 sat jumps, everyone else has to do the same thing and still none of the transactions get confirmed any faster.

Test it: I just saw the BRL-balance change on Shift-reload.

@OP: to add to the list: see Full Merit history for: tread93 (updated last Friday).

If Merit decay makes people send Merit to posts they don't really believe deserve it, it's not helping. I don't think it matters if someone doesn't spend their sMerit, and I'm pretty sure that's already accounted for in the current Merit source allocations.

I may be biased as one of the largest sMerit hoarders though Tempting: only 406 sMerit to go to be the Most generous merit sender of all time

Theymos can say: "i am the administrator."
And I can post it with quotes

That's not entirely correct: if miners would skip the few seconds between full blocks, the difficulty would be a bit lower (after 2 weeks). On average, the same amount of blocks would contain more transactions. There's just no reason for individual miners to do this.