Someone is trying to fill blocks manipulatively

[alani123]

As pointed out on Reddit, someone is probably trying to fill blocks in a manipulative manner. This could be an attempt to try and change the opinion of sceptics about the block size.

https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/397ds9/are_blocks_full/

[okae]

this seems interesting, i was thinking about why not miners couldnt set their own limits and let that be the solution.

i know that big minners could make huge blocks to try to drive small miners out of business, well is true but im sure that core guys can solved it in any way.

[Lauda]

this seems interesting, i was thinking about why not miners couldnt set their own limits and let that be the solution.

i know that big minners could make huge blocks to try to drive small miners out of business, well is true but im sure that core guys can solved it in any way.

That is what a lot of people demanding 20MB blocks don't get. The miners get to choose which transactions are accepted on the block. I pay a VERY reasonable fee that is higher then all their stupid pointless transactions and I get accepted into the very next block! Imagine that? But wait...

Whoever is doing this is actually trying to push us into deciding. This isn't really a bad thing, but manipulating isn't that good.
These transactions are spam, and aren't natural. You can make your transactions have higher priority by including a higher fee. Until the blocks are naturally filled, we should be fine.

According to Luke:

Ironically, they're demonstrating exactly the opposite: that a limit is absolutely necessary.

However I don't agree with this. As previously stated, it would not make much sense to send $2 while including a $1 fee.


There was also this experiment recently:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1075590

[AtheistAKASaneBrain]

As pointed out on Reddit, someone is probably trying to fill blocks in a manipulative manner. This could be an attempt to try and change the opinion of sceptics about the block size.

https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/397ds9/are_blocks_full/

Intended or not, it's proof that Bitcoin is weak without a bigger blocksize right now. I hope we don't reach 1MB, but if we do we'll know if having the blocksize raised quick was the better idea or not.

[alani123]

As pointed out on Reddit, someone is probably trying to fill blocks in a manipulative manner. This could be an attempt to try and change the opinion of sceptics about the block size.

https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/397ds9/are_blocks_full/

Intended or not, it's proof that Bitcoin is weak without a bigger blocksize right now. I hope we don't reach 1MB, but if we do we'll know if having the blocksize raised quick was the better idea or not.

Depends on how you look at it. Some say that a block size increase would destroy the transaction fee market. This way allowing much more zero-fee transaction to be part of blocks. I don't see why it would be harder to spam larger blocks with trash transactions, harder to fill them? Maybe, but we're still not sure if the fees would remain the same after a block size increase. And a change in the fees would likely make the blockchain even more vulnerable to spamming.

[Alley]

Just because the limit is raised doesn't mean miners have to start mining 20mb blocks.

[amaclin]

There is a tool for storing arbitrary data (e.g. texts) in the blockchain for a very low cost.
https://github.com/petertodd/python-bitcoinlib/blob/master/examples/publish-text.py

[alani123]

There is a tool for storing arbitrary data (e.g. texts) in the blockchain for a very low cost.
https://github.com/petertodd/python-bitcoinlib/blob/master/examples/publish-text.py

Kind of irrelevant, but this also exists as an online service:

http://cryptograffiti.info/