57MB in the pool. What did we hit during the epic stress-test of a while ago? Is there a record all time high we should be shooting for? It's hard to tell. It grows continuously based on the min relay transaction fee (which I have set fairly low) after a reboot by my understanding and I don't think this version has an ejection mechanism. So the number by itself is fairly meaningless. I'm thinking of replacing it with something more useful. Use first block inclusion fees. |
|
|
|
How exactly is the network bleeding utility? It's already accommodating all its transactions plus a ton of spam for free or near free, and the rates for urgent first block inclusion are at 3-4 cents and 2-5 blocks with 1-2 cents. How lower can you go? Free?
There is no network that can sustain free txs and bloat attacks. All competitive altcoins with low fees have these fees due to low usage. If you allow free txs AND you have large or frequent blocks, you are just inviting spammers to kill your coin for zero cost.
Again, we're back to talking about planning for today vs tomorrow. Tell me, what will change tomorrow if you are already at the limit? The only thing that can change is the proportion of dust/spam/bloat txs to actual transactions. But most bigblockers don't even want to admit the situation right now and why we have the paradox of "tremendous demand", "full blocks" and ...near zero fees. They don't want to admit it's all spam that should have been cut off in the first place. You realize a solution will take some time I hope.
Technically speaking, the block size can go up any time the devs like and the miners / exchanges can sync - but users should definitely be warned a few months ahead. If it was up to me, I would read the spirit of what satoshi meant by "need" in terms of future increases. I don't get the sense that satoshi meant the "needs" of the spammers to bloat the blockchain. I don't get the sense from any of his late writings (when he had seen the network getting abused) that he wanted near-free txs, max block use for peanuts, leaving every spammer getting away with spamming for nothing etc. I don't get the sense that if he was running the show today that he would see a "need" to give spammers more space. If satoshi proposed a BIP, I feel it would probably be along the lines of increasing recommended minimum fees to reduce spam and/or simultaneously increase the block size a little - having ensured though that the extra space isn't used for attacking the network and its functionality. Look at the average tx volume graph and tell me it jumped right to 1MB (because free shit army) and will immediately jump to 2MB if we add that capacity.
It can jump wherever it wants if a spammer wants to spam you for peanuts and you aren't penalizing him for that, or if some miners are willing to process all the crap there is for peanuts. We simply differ on who should decide which transactions get included. I think it should be miners, you think it should be Core.
No, you want the devs to do that for you. If we see it technically, you are seeking for a fee bypass mechanism which is a free-market intervention. There are two ways to examine the network right now. One is "as is" and the other "as it should". In as-is configuration, we are seeing queues when there shouldn't be queues because the avg block is at 0.62mb instead of 1mb. The as-it-should, would be an avg block of 0.99mb. With the as-is method, there is an extra 50%+ capacity that isn't being used because some miners aren't even interested to raise the 750kb soft limiter or are mining 0-sized blocks. Economically speaking you could say that the fees are not incentivizing them to mine the txs. So instead of the market raising fees to incentivize them to mine, we open the relief-valve-bypass where we say "fuck the miners not mining txs to the limit of 1mb" and we create artificial ...supply of space. Next thing you know, we are at 2-4-8, because propagation sucks and increases orphan risk, a lot of miners don't even care to mine anything and we have a situation where 10-20% of the miners mine full blocks, the others don't even care. What then? Will you still say "ohhh blocks are full we need 20mb"? Will you ask devs to force miners to mine txs? If I am an outside actor (like government, banks etc) I can always find a social engineering vector to create friction: If the miners are mining crap, I will blame them for mining crap and promote some new fork that "fixes" the problem. If the miners aren't mining much, I will blame them for not mining much and promote some new fork that "fixes" the problem. We've seen this already with the block size crap and I have the feeling we'll see it again. The solution will always be the same: United we stand, divided we fall. |
|
|
|
Telling miners, businesses, and users: "Not tonight dear.", when they understand the situation and their options is not a good strategy for Core.
What exactly is the situation? Cointape.com : Which fee should I use?
The fastest and cheapest transaction fee is currently 30 satoshis/byte, shown in green at the top.
For the median transaction size of 369 bytes, this results in a fee of 11,070 satoshis.
That's 4 cents / 0.04 USD for urgent first block inclusion, despite "full blocks" and 55+ mb of queued transactions. I asked "why" before but I didn't get an answer. Why don't we have 5$ fees? Why is it just 4 cents? The answer is that the blocks are full with bogus transactions of extremely low fees. The blockchain is being artificially bloated by actors who aren't really intending to pay much or at all, for making payments that they don't really need. Let's send this back and forth 500 times for the lolz, yeah... who cares... as long as it bloats the hell out of this fucker and have the idiots shout "ohhh fullblockalypse". Do you wait until a tire explodes on your car before you get some fresher rubber on there? "It got me home just fine today." The analogy is wrong in the sense that you position the tire explosion in the future. If we say that the blocks are full, the tx queue is growing etc, etc, then the tire exploded. It's not an "if", right? We hit the limit. What worse can we have? Yet, the "disaster" we are facing are 3-4cents txs. Why? Because most of the txs in the queue are spam and dust. Miners should not even process anything under 10 cents fees. Fuck the spammers. That's never been my position, and I admit it's a bad analogy. It is a slow bleed away of the utility of the network, allowing competing networks to gain a foothold, while miners get 25 btc per block. An artificial competitive disadvantage. There will be no fireworks, just a slow erosion of dominance, at a crucial time period in the network's fight to gain share. How exactly is the network bleeding utility? It's already accommodating all its transactions plus a ton of spam for free or near free, and the rates for urgent first block inclusion are at 3-4 cents and 2-5 blocks with 1-2 cents. How lower can you go? Free? There is no network that can sustain free txs and bloat attacks. All competitive altcoins with low fees have these fees due to low usage. If you allow free txs AND you have large or frequent blocks, you are just inviting spammers to kill your coin for zero cost. |
|
|
|
Telling miners, businesses, and users: "Not tonight dear.", when they understand the situation and their options is not a good strategy for Core.
What exactly is the situation? Cointape.com : Which fee should I use?
The fastest and cheapest transaction fee is currently 30 satoshis/byte, shown in green at the top.
For the median transaction size of 369 bytes, this results in a fee of 11,070 satoshis.
That's 4 cents / 0.04 USD for urgent first block inclusion, despite "full blocks" and 55+ mb of queued transactions. I asked "why" before but I didn't get an answer. Why don't we have 5$ fees? Why is it just 4 cents? The answer is that the blocks are full with bogus transactions of extremely low fees. The blockchain is being artificially bloated by actors who aren't really intending to pay much or at all, for making payments that they don't really need. Let's send this back and forth 500 times for the lolz, yeah... who cares... as long as it bloats the hell out of this fucker and have the idiots shout "ohhh fullblockalypse". Do you wait until a tire explodes on your car before you get some fresher rubber on there? "It got me home just fine today." The analogy is wrong in the sense that you position the tire explosion in the future. If we say that the blocks are full, the tx queue is growing etc, etc, then the tire exploded. It's not an "if", right? We hit the limit. What worse can we have? Yet, the "disaster" we are facing are 3-4cents txs. Why? Because most of the txs in the queue are spam and dust. Miners should not even process anything under 10 cents fees. Fuck the spammers. |
|
|
|
Telling miners, businesses, and users: "Not tonight dear.", when they understand the situation and their options is not a good strategy for Core.
What exactly is the situation? Cointape.com : Which fee should I use?
The fastest and cheapest transaction fee is currently 30 satoshis/byte, shown in green at the top.
For the median transaction size of 369 bytes, this results in a fee of 11,070 satoshis.
That's 4 cents / 0.04 USD for urgent first block inclusion, despite "full blocks" and 55+ mb of queued transactions. I asked "why" before but I didn't get an answer. Why don't we have "5$ fees" or "100$ fees"? Why is it just 4 cents? The answer is that the blocks are full with bogus transactions of extremely low fees. The blockchain is being artificially bloated by actors who aren't really intending to pay much or at all, for making payments that they don't really need. Let's send this back and forth 500 times for the lolz, yeah... who cares... as long as it bloats the hell out of this fucker and have the idiots (or moles / propagandists) shout "ohhh fullblockalypse". |
|
|
|
|
For power users metacrawler was the way to go back then. You couldn't count on any single search engine finding what you wanted. Some had it, others didn't, and most of the time you had to search for the same thing over and over in different engines, so metacrawler was better in that regard.
Google was a one-stop-does-it-right kind'of'site that actually had better results than even metacrawler which, in itself, combined the results of others.
|
|
|
|
With a large amount of financial institutions running blockchains or now implementing them, does this not prove the bitcoin blockchain is a success.
the only reason to implement a technology your competitor invented is because it works
Up to now, only altcoins have implemented decentralized blockchains. Centralized blockchains are just ...highly inefficient hierarchical databases. |
|
|
|
It is the [use cost] that need to be increased!
Said no successful business in a competitive market anywhere. Longterm Bitcoin has to gather enough fees to survive, without fees no miners. Or in your business language: We can give away our product for free, said no successful business ever. edit: the fees will longterm lead 1:1 to Bitcoins security. the higher the gathered fees the higher the security of the network. Nobody will disagree with that. The question is if those fees will be paid by many tx, or just a few. If you limit the size of blocks to 1 MB (and hence, the number of tx to ~1700), the average fee/tx has to become very expensive (~$5 per tx). With 1MB blocks Danny Hamilton estimates fees could reach as high as $100 a transaction. Not sure how that works. Tx cost is (BTC $Price) * (25 BTC per block) / (2.7tps * 60sec * ~10mins) = 10,000 / 1620 = $6.17 <==lowest cost possible, i.e. blocks are full. What am I doing wrong? He's talking about fees. |
|
|
|
Nobody will disagree with that. The question is if those fees will be paid by many tx, or just a few. If you limit the size of blocks to 1 MB (and hence, the number of tx to ~1700), the average fee/tx has to become very expensive (~$5 per tx).
Size is already 1mb, "blocks are full", "mempool has a backlog of XX mb" and tx fees for 1st block inclusion are currently at 0.04USD. https://bitcoinfees.21.co/"The fastest and cheapest transaction fee is currently 30 satoshis/byte, shown in green at the top.
For the median transaction size of 369 bytes, this results in a fee of 11,070 satoshis." |
|
|
|
We wont give our costumers what they need but lets keep increasing the fee instead, until no one wants to use our overpriced old service especially with other better and efficient services raising... this really seems like a smart move.
The customers enjoy 0.04 usd first block inclusion, for "urgent" cases, and that with "full blocks" and a queue in the mempool. Compared to "pay me 1-10%" + serious fixed fees of any other bank-related / cc-related / paypal based payment system, bitcoin is king. There is no altcoin which has solved the fundamental tradeoff between supply/demand, low fees and attack spam vector. If any coin can simply provide free txs for the lolz, then a script-kid can insert 10 Terabytes of transactions for the lolz. In which case that altcoin is a joke-coin, because it will be rendered DOA by the script-kid. Free or near free txs = dead coin by free or near free bloating, until the miners decide that they don't want to mine this shit (by the time they decide that, they may already have hundreds of gigabytes bloat on their hands). One could spend less than a few btcs to spam dogecoin for an entire day, which, theoretically, has 10x more "capacity". Actually one could "sponsor" such bloating as a case study. |
|
|
|
=> An option has been recently merged into Bitcoin Core to disable RBF relaying. In the case that this scenario does happen, people can use that flag to disable RBF and thus we can have more protection against such an attack.
If it was the exact same thing with, or without RBF, then there would be no extra protection against such a scenario by disabling it, right? |
|
|
|
|
If anything, it shows most of the transactions are bogus, conducted just to bloat the blockchain or be used as a "factoid" that "ohhh blocks are full, the mempool is full" bullshit propaganda.
You can make a quantity analysis or a quality analysis.
The quality analysis of the txs is very revealing of what is going on right now. The costs involved to process txs are extremely low at 4 cents for first block inclusion and yet floods of transactions that aren't seemingly in any hurry, are queued up to be processed for zero / near-zero cost. Why?
|
|
|
|
I just realized something about RBF - please correct any misunderstandings I may have, I'm not a btc developer.
We are all operating under the assumption that a quantum computer doesn't exist - but I'm not so sure that there isn't, or that there won't be pretty soon. In any case, the greatest safeguard we have against such a possibility is storing coins in addresses that have no prior spending in them. So when a QC is on the loose, the best one can do is to spend the full amount in order to not leave any coins behind for priv. key extrapolation and hacking. But this is based on a first seen-first serve scenario. RBF would allow an attacker to see a transaction, extrapolate the priv key and issue a respending with a higher fee, hijacking one's money.
So, from what I understand, RBF reduces the futureproofing / quantum resistance of BTC. Is there a way where it can only be implemented by honoring the initial transactions, plus a higher fee - for those desiring to jump the queue - and reject any other attempts to change the destination?
These things have zero to do with one another. If ECDSA is strongly broken somehow, in that the private key is obtainable from the public, then any transaction broadcast publicly spending a coin is stealable. Whether or not miners are implementing RBF or not doesn't matter. RBF should make it much easier, no? |
|
|
|
@AlexGR With regard to your sig, was that rant signed in some way? I mean is there anything that would suggest it's from the man himself, or have I been asleep too long?
It's not from a known hacked address, or a spoofed email. As for signed => he never signed anything. |
|
|
|
Dash Classic by our well known troll iCEBREAKER
iCE's favorite Sledge Hammer episode: https://youtu.be/5un5bCaOKcs?t=430 There's a guy named dashman / dash - in the fuckin' ICE BREAKER episode... ahahah you can't make that stuff up. |
|
|
|
tldr 5 million BTC did not move. Someone with 10k BTC moved it 500 times.
Seems like high volume spam. Instead of spamming the blockchain with dust, now we have XXXX btc moving back and forth, for the lolz, also creating meaningless "output" spikes. In the meantime: (cointape.com) The fastest and cheapest transaction fee is currently 30 satoshis/byte, shown in green at the top.
For the median transaction size of 369 bytes, this results in a fee of 11,070 satoshis (=0.04$ USD for first block inclusion).And that with the mempool having a 43 mb backlog. Obviously those moving coins for the lolz to say "ohhh the blocks are full", "the mempool is full", aren't in any rush to pay - they are just clogging the system with spam as cheaply as they can get away with it. |
|
|
|
rumor says that if classic succeeds big parts of core developers will switch to eth
Makes sense... Smart developers with any open source project prefer challenging and rewarding work that they can design without an angry mob demanding things against their conscience. ... So... RIP Bitcoin? Nope bitcoin will thrive If miners decide to fork it, they'll have created a precedent of zero trust in future stability. Why would BTC continue its existence as a store of value when everyone knows it has and it can be forked in the future into multiple currencies? It all comes down to miners and whether they like mining 400$ BTCs or if they'd like 100$ gavincoins - after the fork, destroying BTC and their own business as well. Not raising the block for a little while longer, will at most prevent some spam and dust transactions and raise the fees a bit. It's 3-8 cents right now for first block inclusion while the largest portion of transactions are paying near the minimum to avoid costs and don't care for speed at all. Forking the currency is destructive for everyone. If the miners like to wear a dynamite vest and blow everything up like suicide bombers, well, we'll have to see what happens next. Personally I'm not discounting the possibility of satoshi returning to officially declaring it a failure and disassociating himself from the post-forking power grab. |
|
|
|
Yeah, the Evolution demo ED gave earlier today.
I watched it and I don't remember anything about it being mandatory. The user accounts are trading addresses in order to send transactions. Why couldn't you just send to an address without using an account? The whole third tier is designed around having some sort of pseudonym on the network, so yes to use Evolution it would be mandatory. However, nothing is really finalized at this point. I'm still really early in the process of designing the system. Was there some problem with have a permanent pseudonym? If it were mandatory, that would mean you couldn't use evolution without an account on the network, but it doesn't mean anything you do on the network with that account would be identifiable. It's just a means of connecting people who want to be connected basically. Yeah, Evan, could we just make the whole social networking thing optional? Some of us would prefer using Dash only as a currency for what it inherently is.. Btw thank you for all of this and your ongoing commitment.  => My understanding is that Evolution is in the 3rd tier so the 1st and 2nd ones will provide the same functionality they provide today.
Evolution is optional as in Paypal is optional.
That would be epic. Where can I read that officially? . So it'll be the exact same thing as now if, say, you work with a simple / non-evolution wallet. |
|
|
|
cointape.com Which fee should I use?
The fastest and cheapest transaction fee is currently 30 satoshis/byte, shown in green at the top.
For the median transaction size of 338 bytes, this results in a fee of 10,140 satoshis.So first block inclusion for a normal tx is at 0.0001 right now, which is less than ...0.04$. That's the bitcoin we have. |
|
|
|
It's wrong. It's based on a price of 0.018. May 2014
The price for the first week of May was quite stable at a price range between 0.0035-0.0038 BTC per DRK. A hardfork was announced to implement RC 2 of DarkSend which would feature masternode payments, for the 14th of May. Subsequently, on May 11, the price rose up to 0.00648 BTC per DRK, or 2.9 USD per DRK, with the market capitalization of Darkcoin reaching a new record of 12.5mn USD. The price corrected downwards towards 0.005 BTC per DRK due to a postponement of the Masternodes payment hard fork for the 25th of May but reached 0.0175 (7.9 USD) on May 15, for a total market capitalization of 32mn USD, ranking it 7th on coinmarketcap behind Nxt, Doge, Peercoin, Ripple, Litecoin and Bitcoin. The price receded for a few days and then hit a new peak of 11 USD and ~48mn USD market cap on the 22nd of May, surpassing Nxt, Doge, Ripple and PPC - leaving only LTC and BTC ahead of it. By May 23th the price reached ~15 USD (0.028 BTC) and the marketcap 65mn USD. Price fell momentarily down to 0.013 BTC after the May 25th fork when problems with masternode payments caused network forking. Price further declined to 0.01 BTC a few days later. The price regained its momentum back to >0.02 BTC levels on May the 30th and Darkcoin regained third place in terms of market capitalization.
June 2014
The start of the month saw some strong buying interest at levels of around 0.018 - 0.021 due to speculation surrounding bitfinex's adoption of Darkcoin. Bitfinex announced it will be trading Darkcoin on the 2nd of June and the price spiked at 0.025 ($15.75). A stabilization to 0.018 BTC ensued. An announcement delaying masternode payments by a few weeks created pressure to the price (0.013) but it quickly regained ground to 0.017-0.018. Price escalated to 0.021 BTC in the eve of RC3 release (19th June) and hit a low of 0.013 after shutting down masternode payments down (20th June) due to fork issues. Price rebounded to 0.015-0.017 levels after the "flash-crash" shortly thereafter and ended the month around 0.014 BTC per DRK.
We also had a 0.025-8 last year after the rebranding IIRC, although BTC was lower. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
