|
Currently I run a program to estimate the lowest fee rate likely to get into the next block. It connects to my local Bitcoin core bode via RPC and runs getrawmempool. It sorts the transactions by fee rate, then takes off the top 1 MB worth of transactions. The fee rate of the last transaction to get in is, in my mind at least a good estimate of the required fee to get into the next block.
I am aware that this is a fairly naive approach, and I would like to improve it. Currently, it does not account for the SegWit discount and will incorrectly decide how many transactions will fit in the block. Also, I am not sure if looking at the mempool is the best option, maybe a rolling average of the lowest fee included in the past 3 blocks would be better for instance.
If these kinds of fee estimation questions have been asked before, feel free to link me but I wasn't able to find what I was looking for.
tl;dr How can I improve my simple fee estimation to be smarter?
|
|
|
|
Cmon, and for a central graph the routing is trivial, but for a random distributed?
Its not solvable and so LN is limited to central ones,
... You know that path finding algorithms have existed for decades right? You know what decades of research has gone into path finding algorithms and quickly finding fast solutions, right? Have you considered that maybe some other thing has run into a similar problem with a large, distributed graph and having to find a good route from point A to B? Maybe something like Google Maps. Or maybe how the internet routes your packets. This is not a new problem, and there are known solutions to it. At this point in time, it's really not that hard to figure out how to quickly find an optimal route in a large, distributed graph. Literally decades of computer science research has been dedicated to this topic and applied to many large distributed graphs that you probably don't even think about. Hail Dijkstra! Seriously, a lot of people here are throwing around "LN is centralized" and "it's the same thing as using banks". That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works. |
|
|
|
They won 0.79btc from a 0.02btc wager.
Why did this guy only get 50% of the jackpot if he bet 0.02 BTC? Their wager wasn't 0.02 BTC, it was 0.005 and they were rolling on 5x. The bet ID was 820922286 Thanks. That makes a lot more sense. So what happens when someone wins 100% of the jackpot? Does it start again at zero or does the site reset it to some non-zero amount? It starts at 0, site investors pay for jackpot hits |
|
|
|
Some one who just joined up today won the jackpot for bitcoin at 50% of what was there with a 877,777 roll!
[...]
They won 0.79btc from a 0.02btc wager.
The site says: > The share of jackpot you win is proportional to your bet amount: > percentage_of_jackpot_won = 100 * bet_amount * f > where f = 100 for BTC That means any bet of 0.01 BTC or more should win 100% of the jackpot. Why did this guy only get 50% of the jackpot if he bet 0.02 BTC? Their wager wasn't 0.02 BTC, it was 0.005 and they were rolling on 5x. The bet ID was 820922286  Ethan, it seems that when a bet is looked up via the "Bet lookup" option, the app isn't making a read_seed call, but it does when you click on a bet in the watch bets or play tab, and it also works when clicked on as a reference in chat. I'm not getting any JS errors in the console when looking it up via bet lookup. |
|
|
|
|
I know Elizabeth Stark of Lightning Labs has spoken out against it, and so has jimmymow, creator of the LN desktop wallet Zap. Pretty much everybody working on LN is saying to not do it, because people don't know what they're doing, the technology isn't ready and breaking changes are being made all the time (that's why they're testing on testnet), and when things go wrong with it before it's ready, people will be less likely to try it again.
It definitely isn't being encouraged by any lightning developers, save maybe Blockstream themselves and they even have a big fat warning label on their website.
|
|
|
|
|
Hey guys, I'm now running an unofficial exchange bot until Ethan gets a real on-site version running, so that people have the option to change their currencies. The bot's id is 84859. It charges a 1% fee and is limited by the funds I've deposited into it, but it's very easy to use. Just tip the bot your coins of one type and it will tip you back coins of the other. If anything goes wrong, like it wouldn't be able to tip you the value in the new coin, or it couldn't get the price, or anything else, it will just return your money to you unchanged.
To see a short message with the current limits and rates (after the 1% fee), type !exchange.
To see a longer message detailing how the bot works, send it anything other than !exchange in a PM ("hey", "yo", etc.), or type any message containing "exchange" and "help" in _public.
If you guys have any problems with it, send me a PM on the site (my id is 21102).
|
|
|
|
|
Once you deposit your Bitcoins into Virwox by sending them to that address, they become a part of Virwox's wallet. This means that they can be combined with other people's transactions, or split up, or sent around however Virwox likes to because that money belongs to them now. As you click on "spent" it takes you to the next transaction or transactions those coins were spent in, possibly other people were withdrawing from Virwox or anything else really.
The point is that once you send someone Bitcoin, it becomes theirs to send on to whoever else they want to. It's like if you pay somebody by giving them a $5 bill, but then they later used that $5 bill, plus some other bills they had to buy something for $20. The next transaction contains more money, but not all of it was originally yours.
|
|
|
|
...
Litecoin is well established for sure and we wanted a coin like that. Plus, Litecoin mimics Bitcoin technically so it was easy plugging into the wallet software itself. The biggest obstacle was changing YD code and data structures to handle more than one coin.
Personally I think Ethereum is worth aadding, but it's based on a very different technology, so it's not a direct plug-in. But we can start working on it now.
Other than that, I am looking at Monero. Some of its privacy features make me believe this coin has a future.
But I am open to any suggestions - any coin you think is worth adding, tell me!
Cheers,
Ethan
I´m pretty much open to any other altcoin and have no concrete idea, I just have some doubts regarding Litecoin since Charlie Lee sold all of his Litecoin - pretty much at the all-time high. Personally, I view Litecoin as a testnet for new Bitcoin features and not as a real altcoin with a real use case. But this is of course only my opinion, other people might think more positive about Litecoin. Obviously I also have to admit that it seems like a good addition for the time being, because transactions
are relatively cheap and fast, which is of paramount importance for a gambling site.Anyway, thank you for the reply, Ethan! This, to me is why Litecoin made the best first addition to the site. It allowed Ethan and Scott to add a framework for adding new coins to YD, while being very similar to Bitcoin. At the same time, it's on nearly all exchanges, and the exchange rate relative to BTC is not as volatile. This means that people that previously had stopped depositing because of fees, can now play again with LTC. |
|
|
|
...it is still unclear how secure the transactions will be and there will still be the issue of high fees when you open/close a channel.
Transactions are fully secure, there are no security problems to worry about as far as transactions go. The largest security problem with the Lightning Network is that nodes are required to have an unencrypted private key in memory to allow for accepting payments at all times. Technically, you don't need to close channels. You can refill them through the lightning network, and so you would only ever make one last transaction on-chain. |
|
|
|
...
Currently BTC and LTC are all we have, but we will be adding more in the future. ...
On the one hand it is great that LTC has been added to YOLODice. Especially, because it allows people, who gamble with small amounts to make fast and cheap deposits once again. However, I´m wondering whether LTC was really the best addition out of all the available altcoins. The decision of Charlie Lee to sell all of his Litecoin doesn´t look particularly promising for the future of the coin. His reasoning is also doubtful at the very least, because he suddenly discovers a conflict of interest when previously he had no problem with it while working at Coinbase. Personally, I think that it is entirely possible that LTC would have never been added to Coinbase if Lee would have never started working there. I´m looking forward to the addition of another altcoin that is not LTC. IIRC Ethan has stated that adding more coins would be easier now that YD has a multi-coin framework set up. Adding LTC seems like the easiest first choice because of how very similar it is to BTC. |
|
|
|
 Ethan, it seems you missed a string  I'm sure they would love to have won that much though |
|
|
|
Sure, it's bad that fees are high, but high fees are not going to kill Bitcoin, because they are driven by open market, they are not installed by one side only like it happens in some centralized systems.
But centralization can kill Bitcoin, you can't undo the damage of big blocks if the blockchain became bloated past certain point.
Of courde high fees can't kill bitcoin, it even didn't affect it overally but don't you hear words from people who says so high fees make it useless to make transaction? Bitcoin is decentralyzed for me, safest option and great currency. These high fees does shit job, I can't receive transaction quickly without ultra high fees. And yes, some people prefer high fees and spammed network because they use it for theirself. Block size must be increased and I think currently even 4MB will be absolutely enough. Can the block size be increased using merely a soft fork? Because hardforks these days are just becoming useless and as they create an alter chain most of the people are reluctant to move on. Increasing block size will surely cater most of the needs of our present time and 4MB would cater need of a pretty long time. IIRC the block size cannot be increased without a hard fork. The reason segwit effectively increased the block size was because it moved some data outside of the transactions, but didn't change the block size limit. I could also be very wrong. |
|
|
|
I want to know, why YOLOdice are not allowing more than one connection from same API key, even with another one, to bet with same account with two opened bots for example?!
Why do you need to bet from two bots at once? I am too lazy to test, but does "read_site_data" API already include LTC data?
Hi, there is an updated API site: https://dev.yolodice.com. Yes, read_site_data include LTC data too. I might be working on REST API too if anyone is interested. Cheers, Ethan I can see why that would be helpful for some people who just want to scrape the site for data (like dicesites.com), but I'm amazed at the stability of the TLS API. At first I was wary of being able to get it working, but after I did, AM often goes days without a reconnect. Most of the time it reconnects because my network changed/I had to restart my machine. |
|
|
|
agreeing with everyone who says "blocks aren't full yet", or "Bitcoin needs validation performance increases first so the network can handle it"
Validation performance didn't even enter my mind, that's a huge point. You wouldn't just need more storage space, doing things like running a full node on an rpi3 would become more difficult. |
|
|
|
Hello, My yolodice-api npm package has been updated to reflect the new changes in the API. AM should soon be fully able to handle everything just as before, and anybody using my package can update to the latest version (currently 1.1.7). |
|
|
|
I heavily disagree with Anti-Cen who is going full conspiracy theorist, saying "censorship" and "ln is the same thing as banks". That's not how any of this works. Lightning Network is so vastly different from banking. | Lightning Network | | Banks | | Completely Trustless | | Requires trust in a financial institution | | Instant payments | | Payments take days to be routed through ACH |
etc, etc... I highly recommend that anybody not familiar with how the lightning network operates read this overview on how transactions are created and routed through the lightning network. As for the rest of what they're saying, I'm not even going to give them the satisfaction of arguing with them because it seems very much like they're not interested in the technical details of how things work, but would rather go around with a sign on a stick telling everybody the end is nigh. |
|
|
|
While I don't have a solid stance on raising the block size, I see a lot of roadblocks in the way of doing it. - Raising the block size makes running a full node less accessible.
- Raising the block size requires a hard fork of the entire Bitcoin network, which imo would be extremely difficult.
- A lot of people are against it (/r/Bitcoin) just because other people have told them to be against it and haven't formed their own opinions, but are swept up in the tribalism
I also believe the lightning network will be successful. People may point at segwit and say "well segwit was supposed to help fees too, and we have low segwit adoption months after the soft fork". These people are correct, but they miss (imo) a huge point. Say a transaction fee on our congested network is $20. With segwit, that fee becomes ~$14 (roughly). With the lightning network, that fee becomes <$0.01. It's a massive, massive difference. Say you have two choices: sell all your Bitcoins, because you believe Bitcoin is dead and can't properly scale. Alright, that takes 1 last transaction to move your coins to an exchange and sell them. OR, you could make one last transaction to open a lightning channel. Now, your Bitcoins are all available on the lightning network, where you can make instant, near-zero fee transactions. I don't believe people will stop using the main network when people start shifting towards using the lightning network. But the more services that support the lightning network, the less payments will be made on chain, which frees up more room for people to make on chain transactions, transactions like opening more lightning network channels. The battle that needs fought now (again, imo) is adoption of the lightning network. It's a drastic change from the benefits provided by segwit, which was more about fixing transaction malleability. If we could only fight one more battle, and it had to be raise the block size or get people to move over to the lightning network, the latter is going to work for a lot longer than the former. Because it's important which battles we choose here, because people will quickly get tired of needing to make changes to use Bitcoin. The Lightning network sounds like the best plan for Bitcoin's current issues, but what does it mean to adapt to it? Is it going to be totally different and outside of Bitcoin's blockchain? Does this make the value of Bitcoin lesser in any way? The lightning network moves the majority of small transactions off-chain, in a way that they are always backed by a real transaction signed by both parties at all times. This allows users to pay each other without miner fees, but money transferred on the lightning network is always "real" bitcoin. |
|
|
|
While I don't have a solid stance on raising the block size, I see a lot of roadblocks in the way of doing it. - Raising the block size makes running a full node less accessible.
- Raising the block size requires a hard fork of the entire Bitcoin network, which imo would be extremely difficult.
- A lot of people are against it (/r/Bitcoin) just because other people have told them to be against it and haven't formed their own opinions, but are swept up in the tribalism
I also believe the lightning network will be successful. People may point at segwit and say "well segwit was supposed to help fees too, and we have low segwit adoption months after the soft fork". These people are correct, but they miss (imo) a huge point. Say a transaction fee on our congested network is $20. With segwit, that fee becomes ~$14 (roughly). With the lightning network, that fee becomes <$0.01. It's a massive, massive difference. Say you have two choices: sell all your Bitcoins, because you believe Bitcoin is dead and can't properly scale. Alright, that takes 1 last transaction to move your coins to an exchange and sell them. OR, you could make one last transaction to open a lightning channel. Now, your Bitcoins are all available on the lightning network, where you can make instant, near-zero fee transactions. I don't believe people will stop using the main network when people start shifting towards using the lightning network. But the more services that support the lightning network, the less payments will be made on chain, which frees up more room for people to make on chain transactions, transactions like opening more lightning network channels. The battle that needs fought now (again, imo) is adoption of the lightning network. It's a drastic change from the benefits provided by segwit, which was more about fixing transaction malleability. If we could only fight one more battle, and it had to be raise the block size or get people to move over to the lightning network, the latter is going to work for a lot longer than the former. Because it's important which battles we choose here, because people will quickly get tired of needing to make changes to use Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
Your transaction just hasn't confirmed yet. I would just be patient and wait a bit for it to confirm.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
