about high priority transaction

[franky1]

miner CAN be forced.
add a new rule to node consensus of validating blocks..
EG
blocks need atleast 1500tx included or get rejected

And this requires a fork, which needs support from miners, ergo you can't force them to do anything.

lol
NODE CONSENSUS
learn it..
its been many since i started asking you to learn about bitcoin. please take less time trolling as if you know, and more time actually learning to actually know. then you may find yourself able to help the community more. rather than just crying "wrong"

if nodes get consensus pools block attempts end up getting rejected by not following the rules and miss out on their rewards and just wasting their own time doing empty blocks because the 20second-2minute advantage of doing empty blocks becomes useless because their blocks get rejected anyway with such an example nod consensus rule.

remember
nodes= bosses
pools=secretary
devs=workers

we already know YOU think devs=boss and devs give power to pools. but thats not how bitcoin works or should work. which is why the soft fork is undecided

[Lauda]

its been many since i started asking you to learn about bitcoin. please take less time trolling as if you know, and more time actually learning to actually know. then you may find yourself able to help the community more. rather than just crying "wrong"

if nodes get consensus pools block attempts end up getting rejected by not following the rules and miss out on their rewards and just wasting their own time doing empty blocks because the 20second-2minute advantage of doing empty blocks becomes useless because their blocks get rejected anyway with such an example nod consensus rule.

I call bullshit on this. Good luck gaining majority of node consensus on such an useless suggestion like that. Oh right, you can't. The same way you can't force miners to do anything.

remember
nodes= bosses
pools=secretary
devs=workers

we already know YOU think devs=boss and devs give power to pools. but thats not how bitcoin works or should work. which is why the soft fork is undecided

There you go again, with your false analogies and stupid conspiracy theories.

[Carlton Banks]

its been many since i started asking you to learn about bitcoin. please take less time trolling as if you know, and more time actually learning to actually know. then you may find yourself able to help the community more. rather than just crying "wrong"

if nodes get consensus pools block attempts end up getting rejected by not following the rules and miss out on their rewards and just wasting their own time doing empty blocks because the 20second-2minute advantage of doing empty blocks becomes useless because their blocks get rejected anyway with such an example nod consensus rule.

I call bullshit on this. Good luck gaining majority of node consensus on such an useless suggestion like that. Oh right, you can't. The same way you can't force miners to do anything.

remember
nodes= bosses
pools=secretary
devs=workers

we already know YOU think devs=boss and devs give power to pools. but thats not how bitcoin works or should work. which is why the soft fork is undecided

There you go again, with your false analogies and stupid conspiracy theories.

He's losing his shit

Just about every franky/jonald/jbreher post these days reads:

"No! You don't understand Bitcoin! It works like " <long boring description of how BU works>



In your dreams, dickheads

[AngryDwarf]

miner CAN be forced.
add a new rule to node consensus of validating blocks..
EG
blocks need atleast 1500tx included or get rejected

Sorry to disagree with you here. If there are not 1500tx's in the mempool, there is no point rejecting the block.

But I do think miners should include transactions based on consensus, not how they can now pick and choose. No more damaging transaction accelerators please.

[franky1]

Sorry to disagree with you here. If there are not 1500tx's in the mempool, there is no point rejecting the block.

But I do think miners should include transactions based on consensus, not how they can now pick and choose. No more damaging transaction accelerators please.

it was an example of NODES setting the rules.. (thats how bitcoin works. its called consensus)
dont get picky about the exact number in a random example , just understand the concept and context of the methodology

[DannyHamilton]

Sorry to disagree with you here. If there are not 1500tx's in the mempool, there is no point rejecting the block.

That's ok.

The miner can just create 1500 transactions that pay from themselves to themselves.  That way they can meet the requirements of having enough transactions to be a "valid" block without needing to include any transactions that they don't want to include.  Sure, it will bloat the blockchain (and probably the UTXO as well), but at least the new rule won't keep them from building blocks.

 

[AngryDwarf]

Sorry to disagree with you here. If there are not 1500tx's in the mempool, there is no point rejecting the block.

That's ok.

The miner can just create 1500 transactions that pay from themselves to themselves.  That way they can meet the requirements of having enough transactions to be a "valid" block without needing to include any transactions that they don't want to include.  Sure, it will bloat the blockchain (and probably the UTXO as well), but at least the new rule won't keep them from building blocks.

 

Lol, do you run a mining node?

[DannyHamilton]

Lol, do you run a mining node?

No, but I've got a pretty good understanding of how the consensus rules and the incentive structure of bitcoin operate.

[CyberKuro]

There used to be some room for high priorities transactions, which even don't pay fees and will be confimed in the blocks with other paying transactions. In the mean time miners seems to only include the higher fee one in the blocks and ingore the high priority ones. What do you think about it? After the block is increased, will this function be activated again?

As to me, just setting higher priority makes no particular sense

Besides, as far as I know, priority depends on how long a transaction hasn't been confirmed, and that might make some sense after all. Other than that, the only genuine measure that could objectively set the initial priority is the size of the fee itself. Really, if you want to prioritize your transaction and make miners actually pay attention to your needs, you prioritize it by making it more valuable for them to include it faster in the next block. In other words, you should put your money where your mouth is

Blockchain transaction become rather expensive cost compare to bank service right now, don't know about MoneyGram.
My last transaction fee was $1.4 and after 10 hours it still not confirmed yet, wth. Higher fee but slow confirmation, I think it maybe related to my wallet as my friend transaction costs low fee than mine but confirmed in minutes. Higher fee doesn't mean become a priorities transaction, in my case.

[AngryDwarf]

Lol, do you run a mining node?

No, but I've got a pretty good understanding of how the consensus rules and the incentive structure of bitcoin operate.

I run a mining node. I've got a U2+ running 2 GH/s against the network. Might as well buy a lottery ticket. But if UASF is implemented, do I get two votes?

[DannyHamilton]

I run a mining node. I've got a U2+ running 2 GH/s against the network. Might as well buy a lottery ticket.

Yes.  At 2GH/s a lottery ticket has ALL of the following benefits:

• Is cheaper
• Has a better chance of "winning"
• Pays more if it does win

But if UASF is implemented, do I get two votes?

If it results in a "contentious fork" and there are two bitcoin blockchains, then you can split your hash power and participate on both networks if you want.

[AngryDwarf]

I run a mining node. I've got a U2+ running 2 GH/s against the network. Might as well buy a lottery ticket.

Yes.  At 2GH/s a lottery ticket has ALL of the following benefits:

• Is cheaper
• Has a better chance of "winning"
• Pays more if it does win

Electricity is expensive here.
The chance of winning is low.
The potential winnings are high, if the block is not orphaned because I lose the SPV race.

But if UASF is implemented, do I get two votes?

If it results in a "contentious fork" and there are two bitcoin blockchains, then you can split your hash power and participate on both networks if you want.

I look forward to cutting my U2 in half. Should put buying asics in the bitcoin newbies mistake forum. Even at zero electricity rates, the difficulty rises faster than old recycled chips sold as new.

Does UASF need hash power? I thought it was just running a node, which may or may not have an informed individual that runs it.

[DannyHamilton]

Electricity is expensive here.

Which is why I said that the lottery ticket is cheaper.  Also, the lottery ticket is cheaper than the hardware you are using.

The chance of winning is low.

Which is why I said that the lottery ticket has a better chance of "winning"  Depending on the lottery near you, the odds of winning the jackpot are anywhere from 10X to 10,000X more likely than you solving a block solo mining.

The potential winnings are high, if the block is not orphaned because I lose the SPV race.

If you get a block to yourself, the winnings are 12.5 bitcoins.  Here in the US that would be about $16,000
Most lottery jackpots are much higher than that.

So, like I said...
A lottery ticket has ALL of the following benefits:

• Is cheaper
• Has a better chance of "winning"
• Pays more if it does win

I look forward to cutting my U2 in half.

That's one way to manage it.  A better way might be to split the time you spend mining on each fork.  10 minutes on one fork, then 10 minutes on the other.

Should put buying asics in the bitcoin newbies mistake forum. Even at zero electricity rates, the difficulty rises faster than old recycled chips sold as new.

Yes.  Unless you have access to very cheap resources (electricity, hardware, cooling, space) mining is generally not profitable.

Does UASF need hash power? I thought it was just running a node, which may or may not have an informed individual that runs it.

UASF (User Activated Soft Fork) is just concept for "activating" a soft fork.  After the fork hash power will still be needed on whichever fork survives.

If it works as intended, then everyone will switch to the new software to avoid being left behind on the "activation date".
Another possibility is that nobody switches to the new software because nobody actually believes that the majority of the hashpower will switch (in which case the new fork never happens).

The most entertaining possibility is that approximately half of the network (and approximately half the hash power) switches to the new software before the activation date. Then the blockchain forks and you get to hash on both sides.

[kidoseagle0312]

There used to be some room for high priorities transactions, which even don't pay fees and will be confimed in the blocks with other paying transactions. In the mean time miners seems to only include the higher fee one in the blocks and ingore the high priority ones. What do you think about it? After the block is increased, will this function be activated again?

This is most often happen in the blockchain where the high fee of charges is priority of transaction in the blockchain. and because of this matter there are more unconfirmed transaction are getting stock while waiting in the confirmation. Isn't its getting unfair to anybody if there is a rules like this.