Are we stress testing again?

[Meuh6879]

Seems Tradeblock have a filter for less than 0,0001 fees ... the mempool on this site is not relevant.  

YES, the bitcoin network is always noised by small fees transactions.
When i disable the maxmempooltx filter, i always have a freezed bitcoin software (mining).
https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/issues/82

That's why statoshi.info have 82 000 tx in mempool (because it can handle the memory linked to that).

[SebastianJu]

Is another stress test running?

There was a small spike, but I dont think it was an attack or stress test. Looks more like higher usage.

Really? Then this is the normal use. Probably coming from the high price of bitcoin. Maybe non-Bitcoiners flow into the market because they think that the price will go up even further now?

Though it shows that the 1MB is not enough and that there is not enough time.

I sent yesterday 4 transactions, 3 went through, 1 is hanging still. I wonder when it will confirm.

I would like to know where should i look at when determining if a stress test is going on AND to find out which fee to use to get your transaction go through. I would like to give easy tips for my escrow users.

I prefer -> https://statoshi.info/dashboard/db/transactions
now that my node can no longer handle all TX, it can only give you a rough picture -> http://213.165.91.169/
There is a site that shows you fee stimates as well, but I cant remember the URL atm. Its cointape.com you listed below.

I know i can look at https://blockchain.info/de/unconfirmed-transactions, if transactions there are more than 2500 then this should be considered not normal and a spam attack is going on. Right?

No. For one bc.i (same as my node now) restricts which transactions they accept. Its also possible that there are 2500 "legit" transactions waiting for a confirmation. Bitcoin is still used differently around the world which results in times where there are more TX. Like a rush hour.

Next thing is cointape.com. You can see if an attack goes on, though it is only possible to find out which fee to use for no problems, if you have a standard transaction. Which is one input in your transaction and 2 outputs. Target address and either change address or the address the funds are sent from. Of course any other works too but that would be standard. Though it is not userfriendly at all because it shows fees in satoshi per byte, which is something you have to be knowledgeable for.

It gives you a recommendation in satoshi per byte. You can roughly estimate 10 byte base + 180 bytes per input and 34 byte per output. Depending on the wallet you use it might not be possible to know how many inputs are used though.

It would still be helpful. Maybe i should send the guys from cointape an email suggesting that they could set up a simple calculator. Though then again, only some people would be knowledgeable enough to know how many inputs their transaction will have.

Then http://statoshi.info/dashboard/db/transactions, where, i think, the most top graph is important. If the yellow line is often at blue line then it can be considered as an attack going on.

No, the blue line is the number of unconfirmed transactions. If its constantly high there has been spam in the past. If its increasing over a longer period there is currently spam going on. Keep in mind the 3rd graph for malleated TX. The more red you see the more TX are malleated.

That sounds like a good way to let noobs know if a spam attack goes on. If the blue line is on top then it might be the case.

So how would you give tips about finding out if a spam attack goes an AND to know which fee to chose to not be hold in limbo with your transaction? And no, i don't consider simply throwing high fees around as the best solution.

IMHO the best solution is to run core as it estimates the fee based on the current state of the network. I know of no other wallet that does this. For every other wallet you have to either go the easy route and take a rough rule of thumb that might result in a "too high" fee or do the estimate yourself everytime. I would argue that its not worth anyones time to check different pages for 10-15 minutes in order to safe a few satoshi in fees.

Youre right. With core there should be no problem.

And yes, it's probably not worth to check much. Though at least it should be important to check if spam is going on at all. Not that someone sends a transaction with standardfee into the spamattack.

[SebastianJu]

Is another stress test running?

I would like to know where should i look at when determining if a stress test is going on AND to find out which fee to use to get your transaction go through. I would like to give easy tips for my escrow users.

I know i can look at https://blockchain.info/de/unconfirmed-transactions, if transactions there are more than 2500 then this should be considered not normal and a spam attack is going on. Right?

Next thing is cointape.com. You can see if an attack goes on, though it is only possible to find out which fee to use for no problems, if you have a standard transaction. Which is one input in your transaction and 2 outputs. Target address and either change address or the address the funds are sent from. Of course any other works too but that would be standard. Though it is not userfriendly at all because it shows fees in satoshi per byte, which is something you have to be knowledgeable for.

Then http://statoshi.info/dashboard/db/transactions, where, i think, the most top graph is important. If the yellow line is often at blue line then it can be considered as an attack going on.

So how would you give tips about finding out if a spam attack goes an AND to know which fee to chose to not be hold in limbo with your transaction? And no, i don't consider simply throwing high fees around as the best solution.

Click this link then select the table view button on the webpage you get. It shows you the latest Fees/size (satoshis/byte) and the size of the mempool in bytes. The fees you need to pay depend on the size of your transaction in bytes. During the last stress test the mempool went up to hundreds of MB.

https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin

The link also shows the fees people are paying for the latest transactions. If you need your transaction processed fast during another stress test you could try paying between 2 and 5 times the fee everyone else is paying.

Thanks for the link. That is an interesting website too. Though it would be a pretty rough estimate. I think the table at cointape.com would be more helpfull to find out which fee will take how long then.

[SebastianJu]

Seems Tradeblock have a filter for less than 0,0001 fees ... the mempool on this site is not relevant.  

YES, the bitcoin network is always noised by small fees transactions.
When i disable the maxmempooltx filter, i always have a freezed bitcoin software (mining).
https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/issues/82

That's why statoshi.info have 82 000 tx in mempool (because it can handle the memory linked to that).

Yeah, though i think small fees are one the few very good advantages bitcoin has. And when i read that the bitcoin network is secured 100 times more than needed then this means to me that the rewards are too high at the moment.

Not to speak about that one bitcoin transaction is claimed to use the daily power usage of 1.75 standard us households, a study said.

This is not healthy. We don't need a fee market at all. Miners let old hardware die all the time. Though now corporations have the power over bitcoin. At least i'm lucky that they decided in favor of a blocksize raise. That shows that they are not only out for the shortterm profit, when it would mean that bitcoin dies on the way.

[tom555]

you guy,just not lucky. i dont know its can happen 

[neurotypical]

For the thread, before the fist 1/3 of the graph) and in the stress test (the 2/3 of graph) ... look the accepted vs rejected.

What happens when a transaction gets "rejected"? I know what unconfirmed means, but can a transaction get actually rejected? Then what happens to the money you sent them?
For how long can a transaction remain unconfirmed? I thought all transactions would get confirmed eventually even if it takes days, and none get rejected.

[Meuh6879]

rejected ?

rejected by the node of someone (because of the fee, because of the mempool, because of) ... not by the network.  

big server of (big) pools of mining accept always all tx to complet the "at the most" long chain to win the BTC reward.

that why i prefer a restriction of the local mempool over the restriction by the fees.
big server handle the 0-fees tx ... and hobbyist handle "fair" tx.

[shorena]

Is another stress test running?

There was a small spike, but I dont think it was an attack or stress test. Looks more like higher usage.

Really? Then this is the normal use. Probably coming from the high price of bitcoin. Maybe non-Bitcoiners flow into the market because they think that the price will go up even further now?
-snip-

Yes, usage is typically higher during price changes, but from what I gather its not new users, but gamblers. I noticed that on just-dice as well as other casinos. Durring strong swings of the price less is gambled. It is my assumption that speculation on the price is enticing to gamblers or the other way around.

-snip-
Though it shows that the 1MB is not enough and that there is not enough time.
-snip-

I think if we did not have the 80k backlog the few hours would hardly be noticed. Some TX would take longer, yes, but not as long as now.

[hdbuck]

rejected ?

rejected by the node of someone (because of the fee, because of the mempool, because of) ... not by the network. 

big server of (big) pools of mining accept always all tx to complet the "at the most" long chain to win the BTC reward.

that why i prefer a restriction of the local mempool over the restriction by the fees.
big server handle the 0-fees tx ... and hobbyist handle "fair" tx.

hard cap on mempool?!

[Meuh6879]

  futur is unpredictable.
  i love this.

Bitcoin can shape the world.
Or people can shape Bitcoin.

[brg444]

rejected ?

rejected by the node of someone (because of the fee, because of the mempool, because of) ... not by the network.  

big server of (big) pools of mining accept always all tx to complet the "at the most" long chain to win the BTC reward.

that why i prefer a restriction of the local mempool over the restriction by the fees.
big server handle the 0-fees tx ... and hobbyist handle "fair" tx.

I do think that is precisely what the new core mempool fix does.

[hdbuck]

rejected ?

rejected by the node of someone (because of the fee, because of the mempool, because of) ... not by the network. 

big server of (big) pools of mining accept always all tx to complet the "at the most" long chain to win the BTC reward.

that why i prefer a restriction of the local mempool over the restriction by the fees.
big server handle the 0-fees tx ... and hobbyist handle "fair" tx.

I do think that is precisely what the new core mempool fix does.

it does "expiration of not-confirming bitcoin transactions in the mempool (def.: 72 hrs)"

[pereira4]

I have always used core and I noticed that the fee adjusts automatically given x parameters so it guarantees your transaction doesn't get stuck. But I didn't knew that core was the only one that did this... I think this is essential. Why aren't all of the rest of the wallets doing this? We need automatic fee everywhere.

[SebastianJu]

I have always used core and I noticed that the fee adjusts automatically given x parameters so it guarantees your transaction doesn't get stuck. But I didn't knew that core was the only one that did this... I think this is essential. Why aren't all of the rest of the wallets doing this? We need automatic fee everywhere.

It would be good when all wallets would include this. Yes. Though better would be the blocksize increase since lets imagine the amount of transactions is rising. Let's say we have double the amount of transactions in 3 years. Then this function would be useless. It would be SURE that half of all transactions can't get a confirmation ever. Which means even with that feature, everyone overbids the other and some will have bad luck.

If it really would come to that then this would be the death of bitcoin. A currency that you can't use reliable, where your money gets stuck in an transaction is a currency everyone would avoid.

[amaclin]

It would be good when...

This is only your opinion.
Can you answer the question "If it would be good WHY dont we have it now, today?"
And the answer is: it wouldn't be good [for everyone]
Think about it.

[hdbuck]

It would be good when...

This is only your opinion.
Can you answer the question "If it would be good WHY dont we have it now, today?"
And the answer is: it wouldn't be good [for everyone]
Think about it.

so many why ifs and deaths.

[SebastianJu]

It would be good when...

This is only your opinion.
Can you answer the question "If it would be good WHY dont we have it now, today?"
And the answer is: it wouldn't be good [for everyone]
Think about it.

Oh well... such logic. :D:D

Though when i read it again you probably mean it the way that we don't have it now because those, who should implement it, have a financial interest that bitcoin is not working fully fine. Unfortunately it is a big part of the core developer team that invested in the lightning network, blockstream, and the worse bitcoin works the better their returns.

Well, i'm sure it will not play out.

It is really a pity that gavin went to hearn. He knew that hearn is someone not liked by many bitcoiners because of his ideas about bitcoin. And now he managed in a seldom stupid way to crash bitcoin xt by implementing an idea that is at least controversy.

So stupid.

I hope someone creates a fork from the core besides xt and core. I would use it when i would use bitcoin core. This shitty politics that is played in bitcoin land at the moment needs someone out of that range.

[amaclin]

that we don't have it now because those, who should implement it, have a financial interest that bitcoin is not working fully fine.

Yes, right.
But not only this.
It can not possible in our Universe to create something "which is good [for everyone]"

[shorena]

that we don't have it now because those, who should implement it, have a financial interest that bitcoin is not working fully fine.

Yes, right.
But not only this.
It can not possible in our Universe to create something "which is good [for everyone]"

Well, I guess we all give up now.

[Cryddit]

There are two ways for a transaction to be rejected. 

The first is "effective" rejection as opposed to "official" rejection, and that's what happens when a conflicting transaction gets into the block chain.  Basically, if one of the inputs of your transaction gets spent by a different transaction, and that different transaction is more than one or two blocks deep in the block chain?  Forget it.  Your transaction, although some places may keep it in the mempool indefinitely, is never going to happen.  (well, unless a chain reorganization reaches all the way back to the block with the conflicting transaction and kicks it out.  But what are the odds of that?)

The second way for a transaction to be rejected is relatively new; with the most recent build, transactions marked as being more than 72 hours old get kicked out of the mempool if they haven't confirmed. 

But there's a point about this 72-hour rule; no miner is under any obligation to follow it.  It becomes non-standard and won't be relayed by default after that point, but  If the miner hasn't kicked it out of their mempool, and no conflicting transaction has gone through, and the miner gets around to including it in a block a week later, it will go through.