Good point. rephrase my usage of "spam attack" to "time period where the mempool has a lot of unconfirmed transactions"

I doubt whoever is responsible for the recent spike in transactions has taken the effort that we have to reduce the impact of dPoW transactions, and in fact they could well have designed their transactions to use up as much of the mempool as possible.

I am very curious to know what rules are being abused.

I designed the dPoW notarization tx to minimize the size on the blockchain. If multisig could even have been used for an Mof64 tx, it would be 2 to 3 times larger.

i saw one tx that was a silly 50 utxo input to a 50 utxo output which was caused by this very spam attack that prevented funds from arriving to that wallet in time, so it had to use all the utxo to fund the inputs. If blocks are normal, then it would have been a single input (which was in transit) and 50 outputs. These 50 outputs use the fully dereferenced pay to pubkey script so it does not have to include the pubkey in the vin script that spends it. That saves the 20 bytes of rmd160 hash that otherwise would be there, not to mention the few extra bytes from script opcodes.

We are paying about 25 sats per byte to not interfere with the normal wallet default of 50 sats, so it is running at a lower priority and not pricing out other transations. It sounds like you would prefer we pay higher prices, which would fractionally price other transactions out. We just might have to if the current spam attack is a permanent state of affairs.

It sounds to me that you consider any usage of bitcoin that isnt officially sanctioned by the QT wallet to be an abuse. Do I have that right?

I followed the protocol. I designed the minimal space using solution that achieves Mof64 functionality. If that is abuse, then it seems to me any usage of bitcoin is abuse unless the central transaction approval committee officially provides a license to utilize such transactions.

Who is on this committee?

1)  Append-Only Data Set

https://github.com/SuperNETorg/iguana/releases


This is our beta wallet that does exactly what you are talking about for the Bitcoin blockchain   in its current state it is a little buggy however a much improved version will be released soon, most likely within the week.

2) The economic majority are caught in a bind.  If they disagree with the miners logically they will try to get out of Bitcoin  and either back into fiat or alt coins.   This accordingly will drive down the price as there is less demand  thus hurting their investment.   As most holder of Bitcoin do so as a store of value   to stop using the network out of defiance  hurts their own investment  especially if they are not in the first wave of defectors.

3)  The right to fork.   Nothing wrong with forking code and building a community around it.  However  this does mean that Bitcoin would be no more if users were so unhappy they decided to do thing their way.

4)  There are many ways to conduct transactions that circumvent the current block time limitation,  however the original discussion was on the diminishing of utility,  this was an example of the diminishing of the utility of time-sensitive transactions.

Yes I am aware that the blockchain will grow faster with bigger blocks and much faster with much bigger blocks.   That's why I proposed an alternative method of storing and syncing the data.

The economic majority has no voting power in regards to changes to the chain  it is entirely in the hands of the miners.

I think it is quite obvious that they will not be obsoleted completely because as you have stated,   there isn't enough of a market for big players to get involved.

That means that every brick and mortar location that accepts bitcoin as a payment should quit doing so and entirely rely on fiat for transactions to be done at a reasonable speed.   10 minutes is already well pushing the limit for time to process a transaction especially for day to day purchases.

You assume that no matter what the block size is increased to that it will constantly fill up.

No matter what, there is going to be some requirement of bandwidth and storage space to host a full node and even in its current state with an inefficient block size,  the blockchain grows on and on.

Many large miners either have deals with or are ASIC manufacturers .

Keeping the block size small encourages them to invest in building/buying more miners  which does nothing to encourage competition and everything to solidify power in the hands of a few.

A blockchain based business  that needs to operate in realtime cannot have its transactions backed up for hours or days.

No. In both scenarios we would be paying fees to the miner. The fact you want to have a smaller block chain means high fees for everyone. That would mean Bitcoin will have less utility than it does now which means it would be worth less.

In this case, small blockchain proponents are shooting themselves in the foot and making the miners VERY happy!

We should be enabling all use cases that do not cause damage to the system.

More importantly, however, the current block size caps system-wide usage of Bitcoin at somewhere around 250,000 transactions per day. Regardless of what the fee rises to. If 300,000 people were willing to pay 0.1, 1, 10, whatever amount of bitcoins as a transaction fee in a given day, not all of their transactions will be able to be processed. Period. Sure, if this was a one-day event, they might be processed the following day. But if usage increases? Nope. Permanent backlog. Regardless of the average fee people are willing to pay.

Oh and I said hundreds "or" thousands, not "of"

I agree with what you say with regards to security and convenience but how decentralized do you honestly think Bitcoin is going to be in 10 or 20 years time when the only people that can afford to mine it will be billion dollar corporations?

And if some of the predictions out there come true - $100k BTC for example, then those TX fee's which are buttons right now are gonna have your trousers right down!

Well, no. In either a small block or a large block scenario, they have the ability to use the system. There may or may not be some relative expense barrier, but they can still use it regardless. While I want to think of it as 'abusing' the system, such an attitude would be in direct conflict with the 'permissionless' philosophy. In a permissionless system, anything that goes, goes.

That maybe true but that is also going to be a major problem when it comes to widespread adoption if they don't sort something out.

I'm no computer noob by any stretch of the imagination, but have only been a BTC user for about 8 months. If I'm having issues trying to work this out how do you suppose somebody that has no clue whatsoever about these things is going to manage?

IMO the single thing preventing more people from using BTC right now, from what I've learned over the past 8 months, is that certain aspects of it (like this) are so unnecessarily complicated and user unfriendly for newcomers. For instance, why not just have a few set in stone staged fee's (depending on how fast you want it confirmed) as standard. They shouldn't rise as the value of BTC goes up or drop as it's value goes down.

Sure this might prevent people from spending smaller amounts of BTC but that's starting to happen with the inflated fees and the USD value of BTC now anyway. If BTC ends up going where some people are predicting the TX fees alone could potentially cost hundreds or thousands of dollars which is just going to render the whole thing completely out of reach for the vast majority of people on the planet and the dream of decentralized currency is going to end up in the hands of a few multi national corporations, in other words, the same shit we have with the banks / fiat right now.

IOW, Komodo is a parasite. phhttthhh to you.

Well, Bitcoin is permissionless. This is just one consequence of this permissionlessness. As much as I find it distasteful.

Frankly, I don't buy into the 'spam' narrative to begin with. There is no objective way of looking at a transaction, and classifying it as spam vs notspam. As long as it pays the fee that some miner would include it in a valid solved block, its valid.

Thanks for the reply Holliday.

I was using the first site you mentioned when calculating my fees, but I'm not sure MultiBit is labelled correctly.

It's says select a TX fee per byte, which I did, but it doesn't show me how many bytes the TX is going to be?

Then when I view the TX on the BC it seems to have used my "fee per byte" as the total fee, but, and this is the weird part, not always. The one that took 36hrs (TX #2 above) said the fee was a total of $11.34 so what's going on there?

Maybe I should just jog on this wallet once and for all :/

For me this isn't so much an issue of the fee's being too high (although they certainly are starting to take the living piss, especially for small payment amounts), but more about what  to actually set as the fee so your transaction gets confirmed.

If it's constantly changing how is your normal everyday person supposed to keep up with it and ensure that they are selecting the correct amount?

How about this one?

Anyone can fork Bitcoin at any time. There is no need for coordination.

This was Satoshi's vision all along -- that eventually full nodes will be costly to run.  However the alternative (what you and Core are promoting) ensures that only institutions will be able to transact on chain.  I don't see how this is any more resistant to external authorities; Indeed, I think I am choosing the lesser of the two evils and perhaps you also believe that you are as well.

I'm curious why do you feel "BU is BS"?

Why do you assume the core team should be the ones to come up with a solution?