3.5million BTC stuck in mempool. All spam  Of course it's not all spam. But >1/5 of all BTC waiting for a block? Nah, you know about tx based on unconfirmed inputs... If I had to hazard a guess... this is the big blocker version of nuking the ip's of classic nodes. [OR... if your lead foil is thick enough... the small blockers doing exactly the opposite of what you'd think they'd do after seeing the big blockers ddos themselves.] |
|
|
|
-snip-
Because Bitcoin is a public good, and because the Law of Marginal Utility applies to money just like any other commodity, an artificial fee market amounts to a regressive tax. You've turned Bitcoin into just another tool of oppression.
Bitcoin isn't a public good. It is not provided without profit to all members of society... Space to include your transaction is a product/service, and it is provided by private companies, for a profit, either directly or indirectly. I get the gist of where you're trying to go, but it's just not working, try again. |
|
|
|
Yo hdbuck, You finally get some success in building The Realest Bitcoin (client)? They totally weren't making fun of you after you left neither...  |
|
|
|
The miners are economic competitors, with each other, to serve their customers (users), with a product (blockspace). The mines are their factories. A bigger mine means more potential blockspace will be theirs to sell.
No , users are not miners customers and blockspace is certainly not a product. There is a power dynamic between Users , miners, merchants, exchanges and developers. Your analogy is a horrible one as it ignores that the "product" isn't something that is created by miners in a "factory" but something created by the combined efforts of users , developers, and miners. Remember, Bitcoin is the longest valid PoW chain and developers and users (using economic full nodes) define what is and isn't valid, and not directly the act of mining. (although miners are users themselves so fill 2 roles) So by requiring their tx confirmed, users contribute to this great product we call the Bitcoine ecosystem (alternate spelling: echo system). I'm starting to understand... Let me try! The butcher's customers aren't customers, that's a horrible analogy. The butcher, the cow, the guy that drives a bolt through the cow's brain at the slaughterhouse, and the woman that gives the captive bolt guy head -- they all interact in this complex interrelated power dynamic, thus creating the product -- that is to say, the market itself. Am I doing it rite? I was grudgingly about to bang out this whole thing about God, the chapel organist, and a landscaping company... thanks. |
|
|
|
What the actual... That's exactly what you're advocating tho. If miners were setting soft limits and the malicious miner DoS limit was well above actual tx's [like it was for 5 years(!)]... we wouldn't be arguing about anything, the fee market would be determined along miner's actual supply curve. Core Devs have morphed into economic Central Planners with their stalling... and not for no reason, they want to sell the medicine for our "disease".
There needs to be a balance between the mining "central planners" with the developer "central planners" with the user "central planners" and the... ect... with defining the constraints to insure our network is secure and robust rather than remove all constraints and allow any individual group of "central planners" to have too much control. Thus miners should have some choice and control , but not complete control as there is a dynamic and overlapping consensus structure here. Now you can see how the term "central planners" isn't very appropriate to use when I describe the balance of power dynamics. No. The miners are economic competitors, with each other, to serve their customers (users), with a product (blockspace). The mines are their factories. A bigger mine means more potential blockspace will be theirs to sell. Dev teams create software that may be chosen, and used by miners, or it may not be. They compete with other dev teams. They are not an infallible priesthood, and if they make decisions that harm the best interests of the miners, they will be routed around [eventually...]. Miners must weigh all variables when deciding how much blockspace to produce... will it damage the decentralized nature of the network? Will this huge block become stale when a chain of smaller blocks supplants it? Will enough customers want to pay my minimum fee? Satoshi designed the system based on free market incentives, the consensus mechanism is here:  As it stands, Core devs have their mitts on a lever... they are deciding a production quota. That's central planning. Something that used to be a good deal less popular around these parts. Your solo solar mine, and now this, leads me to question how much you really understand about markets, economics, and Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Looks like the HK meeting might not be the 80% mining monolith we thought it was... cat fights on tweeters.  |
|
|
|
...actual blockchain use is low and the rest of the free space is topped off with spam. That's why fees don't rise. If every tx was legitimate...
What are the objective criteria by which any given transaction can be classified as being either: a) spam; or b) legitimate? I have been asking this for months of many who like to kick around the term 'spam'. Many of them repeatedly. Perhaps even you? But to date, I have received exactly zero responsive replies. Spam includes any unwanted or unnecessary transactions which impose a burden upon the network. Unwanted and Unnecessary can be defined as tx which are deliberately made to attack the network and hold no purpose other than to cause disruption or bloat. Spam is also defined as any tx that pays far below the necessary threshold of fees that would be considered the norm during a given moment. This can change with time but is always quite distinguishable as seen here: https://bitcoinfees.21.co/#delayIn the chart above you can see : 21-40 Satoshi's Per Byte is arguable 0-20 Satoshi's Per Byte is clearly spam Now it is not for us to decide for a miner if they want to subsidize or process spam on the network regardless of any externalities it imposes upon all full nodes permanently and the network as a whole. One goal of a fee market is to eventually incentivize miners to begin to slowly value tx fees rather than merely the block reward which means tx fees need to increase to 5-10 usd per tx eventually once block reward is practically non-existent. Simply increasing the blocksize will never produce enough volume to compensate for these fees as it doesn't scale like payment channels do which can than pass on really high tx fees onto miners for a large set of aggregated txs as a settlement. What the actual... That's exactly what you're advocating tho. If miners were setting soft limits and the malicious miner DoS limit was well above actual tx's [like it was for 5 years(!)]... we wouldn't be arguing about anything, the fee market would be determined along miner's actual supply curve. Core Devs have morphed into economic Central Planners with their stalling... and not for no reason, they want to sell the medicine for our "disease". |
|
|
|
Back in the day, I would buy a sandwich with BTC every week. Fellow customers were impressed when I scanned a qr code with my phone and hit send. The vendor smiled when it popped up on their tablet 1.5 seconds later, the future had arrived. Little did I know... I was bloating the blockchain with spam, filling in bytes in people's hard drives that should have been used for uncensorable payments to "freedom fighters", payment channel hub settlements, central bank reserve settlements, maybe a life-saving international drug transaction, or two. Ignorance is bliss, I guess. Amazingly, the vendor trusted my 0 conf transaction and let me walk away with the grub... every time. They hadn't met Peter Todd yet. Maybe they've got a lightning channel open to handle the "new normal", I should ask... or not. Memories... We were young(er), scaling up the blocksize à la satoshi's post seemed a no-brainer, Blockstream hadn't been founded yet... the future was bright and full of possibilities.  Pump it above 450 guise, please. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is under attack, and I'm not sure you see it as your salary probably is dependent on this very state. it startes with this PR war. Correct. The sudden influx of transactions today means that somebody is trying 'to make' Gavin look like his prediction was accurate when it fact it wasn't. There is a claim from 'experts' (albeit exact information not available I think) from the roundtable that only 40% of the blocks are actually full (if you exclude the spam). The mempool was ~1.5k 2 days ago (this says a lot). However, it also seems like the price doesn't really care. Interesting ... and there is indeed evidence to back up your claim - https://twitter.com/lopp/status/703769346921930757The "evidence" you present is evidence of the crawler that was identifying ip's running classic for attack. So now you know. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin_Classic/comments/47zglz/ddos_started_again_have_a_nice_day_guys/d0gl9ao?context=10000fwiw, I do think there is some mempool spamming going on too, possibly in retaliation. |
|
|
|
You do realize that bitcoin transactions are near-zero-cost, don't you? What central planning and quotas are you telling me about? What protection from decentralization or spam? We are at almost 70gb, with most of it being crap.
Uh, really? The malicious miner DoS protection limit set in 2010 turned central economic policy tool. Again: we are at practically zero-cost-txs with 1c-2c-5c etc. This is bullshit. You keep saying these cents numbers as if they're relevant. Use sat/byte pls. And tell me what a non-near-zero fee will be, thx. I'm obviously not asking for an objectively correct number here, that's not possible ("near" is not an objective descriptor), just your personal opinion will suffice. At what point is it not near-zero-cost?
There is not a single point where extremely cheap suddenly stops being extremely cheap. At least not if you have 0.01 usd increments. You can't say 0.05 is cheap and 0.06 stops being cheap. That doesn't work. See above, you are the one saying they are near-zero fee. I am politely asking you, the budding central planner, what level you think that stops being the case. How much competitive advantage do you want to sacrifice at 25BTC per block reward?
As I demonstrated BTC is not losing anything to its competitors. We have a "blocks are full" situation. Who is getting BTC traffic due to our "disadvantage"? Competitors blockchains are empty ghost-towns. The competitive advantage rationale could also be applied for block times and have people asking for "urgent" cutting to 2.5m or 1m blocks etc. "Ohhh our opponent has faster blocks, quick, let's make our block fast too because we'll be very slow compared to them and we'll lose clients". 2-3-5 years after the introduction of faster currencies, BTC is still king despite it's competitive "disadvantage". Why? A sure sign of a true businessman, "competition doesn't exist today, therefore it won't, ever, pay up suckas". |
|
|
|
 v.0.12.0 has only been out for a week! Is this the same variety of math where segwit = 2MB max_block_size?  |
|
|
|
You do realize that bitcoin transactions are near-zero-cost, don't you? What central planning and quotas are you telling me about? What protection from decentralization or spam? We are at almost 70gb, with most of it being crap.
Uh, really? The malicious miner DoS protection limit set in 2010 turned central economic policy tool. At what point is it not near-zero-cost? How much competitive advantage do you want to sacrifice at 25BTC per block reward? Why do we have a block reward at all if not to subsidize growth in the early phase of the network? I know (to you) the transactions are spam and the blockchain is crap, we went over that part already. |
|
|
|
Technically speaking, he is right although all that has happened have created a spin on the events that if we don't include cheap spam in the blockchain then ...bitcoin won't grow... Like bitcoin needs spam growth and not legit tx growth.
There are a lot of actors in the forum, twitters, news etc, proclaiming the fullblockalypse, but the reality of the matter is that there is no fullblockalypse due to the fact that actual blockchain use is low and the rest of the free space is topped off with spam. That's why fees don't rise. If every tx was legitimate, and there was an actual crowding of txs competing for the limited space, fees would have gone through the roof.
Anyway, instead of NACK, he could say "ACK with the condition that default min fees also rise to combat spam".
Yes, I know you believe people using the network are spammers. You believe in the Core developers becoming being economic central planners... setting max production quotas. Only in the name of keeping you safe from terrorism decentralized tho. A proponent of free market economics would say this is a decision to be left to the producers of block space... the miners. In a sense, by 80% of them leaving their future to be decided by Blockstream... they have.  As brg444 likes to say, we have voice and exit... |
|
|
|
Preach it brothers. Fuggin spammers. These guise just don't get it. Without Core, Bitcoin will also fail.    |
|
|
|
Spam limit working as intended  no the transactions centralized control deemed undesirable were not written to the blockchain but bloated the Mempool, something that was not supposed to happen. Mempool bloat? Meh, just another spam attack. Honeybadger eats those for lunch. $0.06 to get in the next block! Who's buying? AlexGR was happy to remind us it was $0.04 (we should be using sat/byte btw) a week ago. So... 50% growth in a week boys! Can you smell that predictability and competitive advantage? Mewn sewn! The situation from 40satoshi upwards is pretty similar. https://bitcoinfees.21.co/31-40 satoshi per byte (1-9 blocks wait) 41-50 satoshi per byte (0-2 blocks wait) 51-60 satoshi per byte (0-1 blocks wait) 61-70 satoshi per byte (0 blocks wait) Guarantees for 0-1-2 blocks or 10-20-30 minutes don't exist anyway, as the next block could be empty. Same for time. Next block could be issued in an hour due to variance, or you could have 3-4 blocks found in 20 minutes. Quoted for future reference. Also, if we consider that 90% of the transactions are spam, blocks are currently 10% full. |
|
|
|
Who should decide what the fair price of a tx is?
Competition between miners. Sounds good to me! The old supply/demand dynamic, right? Now, who should decide how much demand there is for tx? Who should decide what the supply of tx is? Demand is demand. Supply is supply. Free market is balancing supply and demand. Every miner decides which is the lowest tx fee (cut-off level) for every particular block. If tx fee for extended period is too low miners will go out of this business. If tx fee for extended period is too high new miners will enter this business. What don't you understand? So much fail... Do you even supply curve, broh? Do you even central plan? |
|
|
|
That was the crawler used by the DDoSer that nailed all the classic ip's this weekend. |
|
|
|
Spam limit working as intended no the transactions centralized control deemed undesirable were not written to the blockchain but bloated the Mempool, something that was not supposed to happen. Mempool bloat? Meh, just another spam attack. Honeybadger eats those for lunch. $0.06 to get in the next block! Who's buying? AlexGR was happy to remind us it was $0.04 (we should be using sat/byte btw) a week ago. So... 50% growth in a week boys! Can you smell that predictability and competitive advantage? Mewn sewn! An aside: You, BitUsher, AlexGR, and hdbuck all joined the forum around the same time... can you guess who was first?  |
|
|
|
So what are the conclusions of this wanna be something special elite kind of freemasons crap roundtable??
This one was just for a bunch of startups on life support to commiserate and glad hand about how, last weekend, a group of 4 dudes already shook hands on the path for the next 2 years. |
|
|
|
To be fair, the 5-8 members of that circle jerk are equal opportunity haters of all derpish heretics with pretensions towards The Realest Bitcoin.  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
