Fees may have plummeted from their highs, but they are still considerably higher than they were 6 months ago namely 5x higher.

Anyway, I always thought that it was the 'big block' side that was doing the spamming. It seemed to be the consensus on these forums and made logical sense, look there are too many transactions and fees are high we need bigger blocks.

But the timing of it stopping could now equally point to it being the 'small block' side doing it to force their solution of segwit through, now that it's highly likely that it's going through either with UASF or Segit2x no need to continue.

The 2mb part is still to come, if it's just a lull and resumes again post segwit, it will point back to the big blockers, because there will be zero reasons then for the small block side to do it. At least the question will be answered.

Work meaning to have no backlog thereby reduce fees and lower confirmation times, that's all I want.

I don't doubt the technical aspect of it working, but nobody knows how much it will help with the above until it's implemented.

Segwit is coming and the question will be answered however.

That is THE question though, what will post segwit bitcoin be like.

One side believes segwit will work, the other side believes it will make very little difference.

This is why although I wouldn't pick either of the current solutions, this compromise will at least allow the question to be answered.

If it does work, then the demand for bigger blocks will decline and we will just have segwit. If it fails to make an impact then opinion may swing towards bigger blocks.


Maybe I've misunderstood but I thought it was only the very FIRST block that needs to be >1Mb, once that has been done there there is no minimum size, so no bloat or delays.

Well blocks have been increasing in size and fees have been rising. For sure I agree that this has not been organic, and has been a deliberate attempt to force the issue. There is is no doubt there is/was a huge volume of spam transactions, but both the big block AND segwit sides could have been doing it or indeed both of them to show that their solution was needed.

But if you look at the situation now, the mempool has shrunk from it's highs of over 100k to currently around 12k, but fees are still high at 270 sats/byte and there is still a backlog forcing these fees.

I disagree that doubling the blocksize wouldn't have helped, at it's simplest level the cost for the 'spammers' would have doubled to maintain the backlog, yes they may have done that, but then if the premise is that it's the big blockers spamming to force their solution then why would they need to spam once they had it, and once we are post segwit there would be no need for the small block side to do it either.

What matters to me is how quick it takes to confirm a transaction and how much it costs.

And that will likely shape the coming battle, if post-segwit doesn't live up to the hype and significantly reduce both then it makes it more likely that the 2MB part will go through, or if it does help a lot then maybe the desire for bigger blocks will wane.

I just want a long term solution which this agreement isn't, but it's better than nothing.

Here is the page that tells you they do this, nowhere does it say that they are specially marked.

https://new.nicehash.com/help/is-nicehash-competing-with-customers-buying-orders

I highly doubt that they are Nicehash orders you are seeing, you can normally spot them when the price is really low, and whilst they do tend to gobble all the hashrate up, they don't appear drive the price up to silly levels.

What you are seeing is probably just some badly programmed user bot(s) (that don't seem to have a price ceiling, and want to take most and usually all of the available hashrate), when the prices go silly high it's likely 1 or 2 of them battling each other.

I suppose it will depend on what hardware you have, but maybe once a month on the dagger algo or if you see that your average speed is lower.

Yes, you should.

Difficulty in itself won't make any difference, your machine will still run at the same speed, difficulty only affects the profit but then that is the whole point of nicehash to stop the need to worry about that part of the equation.

Where running benchmarks may matter is if you are mining DaggerHashimoto, because as the DAG increases the speed itself may drop. At the moment cards like the RX5xx's are still on that algo 100% but as the speed drops they may start to be more profitable elsewhere.

Yes I get the genuine emails, but now ALSO getting phishing ones using an address that has only ever been used at btc-e.com. (It's something I do with every site that wants an email address from me, as it makes it simple to know which sites may be insecure and/or selling your information on, and so you just block that address to fix the problem, keeps the inbox a lot clearer !!)

As it's unique it's either been gotten from my computer, or from the btc-e servers. hence why I asked if others have had this happen. If it was just me then the problem is at my end, but as others have also reported it then seems likely there may have been some form of leak of information from their end.

Thanks for another quick fix, working fine now for me.

Well done on the mobile website btw, did my company one ages ago and they are a nightmare to get looking good AND be easy to use.

Whilst I am here one thing that has always irritated (on the old site too) is constantly having to log in, would prefer a much longer time out.

Found another issue on the new website for you.

It happens when viewing on a mobile device (Samsung S7 Edge / Chrome Browser in my case)

If you go to 'For Buyers -> Marketplace' everything fits neatly in to the page width, this works great unless you have an active order. If you do, then it appears like the graph generated extends to the right every time the page auto refreshes, as it's not possible to scroll right, after a couple of minutes all you can see on the page is the order number.

HTH

Thanks very much for adding that so quickly.

It's not particularly important, but the time field is truncating on the payment list...

I think he means this, which is very handy...



The new website does look really good and lots of new features that make it better, seeing all the workers and algo's on the same page is a great improvement.

So far the only thing I used to use on the old site that appears to be missing is the 'show my orders' (I know there is a link for 'My Orders' but that just shows active and not the current stats)



Great work though, like it  

There is another reason that ties in with this, you need to trust exchanges and quite frankly I wouldn't trust any of them with anything over BTC1.

If they aren't run by anonymous people in eastern europe, they are usa based ones selling you out to the authorities, even if you avoid those then they will probably just claim they were 'hacked' and run off with your coins and/or money.

Nope I'll HODL and increase my holdings in ways other than gambling, so put me down as an idiot 

So no desire to compromise even when they get everything they want NOW and the other side gets a a modest increase to 2Mb in 6 months, what are the reasons given ?

It's also a concern for some of us users too

If I want to send you a payment all I want to do is enter it in my wallet, press send and pay a reasonable fee. I have no desire to think about whether I do or do not open a channel between us and how much I want to tie up just in case I later decide to send you some more, and the hassle of getting it back if I then change my mind.

It's a hugely complicated solution to a simple problem, increase the bloody blocksize. Yes segwit has a little extra but it's all determined by too many factors that it's not going to make much difference.

Segwit + 2MB sounds ok at first thought, but it seems to me that Devs have fought tooth and nail against increasing the blocksize, we are only at this compromise point now because of the miners pressure. But what's going to happen down the road, once devs have segwit then pools have nothing to bargain with and before too long, those new 2MB blocks are going to be full and the fees will be high again, at that point the chances of any further increases in the blocksize are pretty much zero so high fees will be here to stay and it will only get worse, at that point you will only have 2 choices

1. On Chain, High Fee
2. Off Chain, Still High (But not as high as above)

Oh there may be various off chain solutions competing to get your transactions and offering a decent price at first, but as sure as eggs are eggs the number will diminish and the prices will rise, it seems that people cry about centralisation of one thing, and ignore the centralisation of another.

I'm not anti-segwit or against off chain scaling, like you I think it should be an option for those that find it useful, I can't think of why I personally would need to use it, but there may be a reason in the future, so bring in segwit but I want a one time solution at the same time, not a sticking plaster and kicking a can down the road.

Bigger blocks are the solution, but core doesn't want them and pools don't want them, I have just read your linked post (sorry should have done it first), yes that's a compromise I'd be more than happy with, but sadly I don't see either side agreeing because both sides aren't after that (but I could be wrong).

Anyone else use a unique email address on the site ?

In the last few days started receiving emails to mine, they are addressed to "first, Last", so if the user database has been compromised then it only looks like a partial leak.

OK having thought about this more overnight, it doesn't appear to be bad like I first thought.

The FAQ says:
"Fee for all nicehash-wallet mining payments (regardles of size) is 2%." (PS Typo here it's regardless)
"Fee for payments with unpaid balances, greater than 0.1 BTC to external-wallet is 3%"

Let's take my usual payment of 0.1 BTC

External: 3% = 0.003
Internal: 2% = 0.002 so that looks better, but then at some point I have to withdraw those coins let's use some examples

0.25BTC
External: 0.0075
Internal: 0.005 + Withdrawl Fee 0.005 = 0.01

0.5BTC
External: 0.015
Internal: 0.01 + Withdrawl Fee 0.005 = 0.015

1BTC
External: 0.03 (10 x 0.003)
Internal: 0.02 (10 x 0.002) + Withdrawl Fee 0.005 = 0.025

10BTC
External: 0.3
Internal: 0.2 + withdrawl fee 0.05 = 0.25

So it does appear to be better to use the internal wallet, but you need to not do small withdrawals to get the most benefit.

Not sure if you are going to make a new thread for the V2 miner, but just tried it...

Looks great, installation seemed simple but as soon as it started mining got an error

Windows cannot find C:\Users\First

(This is if I was called 'First Name', so seems like a problem with a space in the file path)

Whichever is greater, so you can't withdraw 0.00104779 as the fee would be 0.005, the minimum withdrawl is therefore 0.006, and most of it goes in fees.

If balance is 0.1 btc, 0.5% fee is 0.0005 which is still less than 0.005 so you pay the minimum fee of 0.005

If the balance is 1btc, 0.5% fee is 0.005 so they are the same and that is the cutoff.

If the balance is 2btc, 0.5% fee is 0.01, which is greater so that is what you would pay.

It gets very expensive very quickly to withdraw, going to have to look more closely at this. I know fees are on the rise but this seems excessive on top of the 3% on both sides of the hashrate to me.

*See my post below I was wrong on this bit, thought it was 3% fee + withdrawal charges but they are not separate items they are combined.

I think there is a mis-communication here as I was wondering the same thing as the OP, and I think we are both asking why the balance isn't being transferred (not withdrawn)

IE Let's say I have balance of 0.03, If I mine to an external wallet, that gets automatically sent once per week as it's between 0.01 and 0.1 which was what I was doing

Now I'm mining to the nicehash wallet to save a little in fees it should follow this...

So it should move daily from my unpaid balances to my nicehash wallet, is how I read it, perhaps it needs claryfing.

Also while I am here please can we have the auto refresh back and that new API limit of 1 per minute is pretty annoying too.