Bitcoin transaction Times SUCK

[ranochigo]

Really? Well in a month, I always receive and send an amount varying from 0.5-2BTC and I never had any longer confirmation time of 20 minutes.

Yea it is beginning to really get on my nerves, I have clients who needed a BTC withdraw form our site the other night for a time sensative trade, and it took almost an hour just for 1 confirm I was so angry. It makes me look bad HAHA. I sent ti out as soon as I saw the request but wow it took forever to confirm.

I think a 1 to 5 minute confirmation would be great, i just dont know about how they go about restructuring the block reward in that case to have more blocks with in a less period of time with less reward.

Alt coins have already been experimenting that and it would result in miners getting more stale due to the faster block time. Faster block time eg 5 minutes would only have 1/2 of the security of the current Bitcoin network. The changes would require hardfork.

Are the payments from one output? Have you tried using other alt currencies such as Fastcoin which apparently has a confirmation of around 12 seconds or Litecoins (Which take a few a minutes)

Just saying but economy protest is one of the most effective methods of protest

The most recent one had 3 outputs, but my other wallet has only 1 to 2 usually still with the same times.

Yes I use a variety of different coins on a weekly basis actually, I run a stake mining pool and deal with 11 to 15 different coins thru-out the week including LTC Bitcoin DOGE which are used for payment and deposits, and the 10 wallets we are running as well. Bitcoin has by far the absolute slowest transaction times compared to all the others I use.

Your fee simply was too low for a transaction that you try when the bitcoin network is spammed since days. If you would have used the double value as fee then you surely wouldn't have had a problem. The thing is the spammers put in nice fees too and they create so big transactions that the blocks get full pretty fast.

So you simply need to pay more to get your transaction included faster. And maybe use 0.000201 or so since then you even have a slight advantage against users with 0.0002 Bitcoin as fee. Miners always use the best paying transactions first.

To reduce cost, spammers simply put the amount that is higher than average as fees. Miners have to include 50kb worth of transaction based on the priority first before going into the fee part where they rank transactions based on fee/kb not fee.

Putting 0.0001BTC/KB works fine for me. Mine was confirmed within the next block.

[bitcoinmasterlord]

Really? Well in a month, I always receive and send an amount varying from 0.5-2BTC and I never had any longer confirmation time of 20 minutes.

Yea it is beginning to really get on my nerves, I have clients who needed a BTC withdraw form our site the other night for a time sensative trade, and it took almost an hour just for 1 confirm I was so angry. It makes me look bad HAHA. I sent ti out as soon as I saw the request but wow it took forever to confirm.

I think a 1 to 5 minute confirmation would be great, i just dont know about how they go about restructuring the block reward in that case to have more blocks with in a less period of time with less reward.

Alt coins have already been experimenting that and it would result in miners getting more stale due to the faster block time. Faster block time eg 5 minutes would only have 1/2 of the security of the current Bitcoin network. The changes would require hardfork.

Are the payments from one output? Have you tried using other alt currencies such as Fastcoin which apparently has a confirmation of around 12 seconds or Litecoins (Which take a few a minutes)

Just saying but economy protest is one of the most effective methods of protest

The most recent one had 3 outputs, but my other wallet has only 1 to 2 usually still with the same times.

Yes I use a variety of different coins on a weekly basis actually, I run a stake mining pool and deal with 11 to 15 different coins thru-out the week including LTC Bitcoin DOGE which are used for payment and deposits, and the 10 wallets we are running as well. Bitcoin has by far the absolute slowest transaction times compared to all the others I use.

Your fee simply was too low for a transaction that you try when the bitcoin network is spammed since days. If you would have used the double value as fee then you surely wouldn't have had a problem. The thing is the spammers put in nice fees too and they create so big transactions that the blocks get full pretty fast.

So you simply need to pay more to get your transaction included faster. And maybe use 0.000201 or so since then you even have a slight advantage against users with 0.0002 Bitcoin as fee. Miners always use the best paying transactions first.

To reduce cost, spammers simply put the amount that is higher than average as fees. Miners have to include 50kb worth of transaction based on the priority first before going into the fee part where they rank transactions based on fee/kb not fee.

Putting 0.0001BTC/KB works fine for me. Mine was confirmed within the next block.

Your'e right. 0.0001 BTC as the minimum fee worked for me too at the end.

Luckily this spam attack, looked like to go endlessly , stopped. It was really annoying.

[aakashsangwan]

I've read somewhere that if you make the transaction fee from 10k Satoshi to 10001 Satoshi then your transaction will be more preferred than the other transaction whose fee is 10k Satoshi.

[shorena]

I've read somewhere that if you make the transaction fee from 10k Satoshi to 10001 Satoshi then your transaction will be more preferred than the other transaction whose fee is 10k Satoshi.

If they are the same in size (byte) and miners sort by fee per byte this would put you ahead in the list slightly, yes.

[aakashsangwan]

I've read somewhere that if you make the transaction fee from 10k Satoshi to 10001 Satoshi then your transaction will be more preferred than the other transaction whose fee is 10k Satoshi.

If they are the same in size (byte) and miners sort by fee per byte this would put you ahead in the list slightly, yes.

Slightly!!!!!!  Majority of people use 10k Satoshi as transaction fee and if we use 10001 Satoshi then it should give us a major advantage over others.

[d4n13]

I've read somewhere that if you make the transaction fee from 10k Satoshi to 10001 Satoshi then your transaction will be more preferred than the other transaction whose fee is 10k Satoshi.

If they are the same in size (byte) and miners sort by fee per byte this would put you ahead in the list slightly, yes.

Slightly!!!!!!  Majority of people use 10k Satoshi as transaction fee and if we use 10001 Satoshi then it should give us a major advantage over others.

The transaction fee is a statistical question... As long as the entire mempool can fit in one block (which it can as of right now), you can go all the way down to 1 sat/byte.

The minimum TX fee to stay on the network (as of today) is 1000 sat / 1000 bytes (or 1 sat/byte).

If your TX has old coins, it is possible that the priority is high enough (as of today 57,600,000) to stay on the network with no TX fee

If the mempool is larger than one block (1,000,000 bytes) then your TX will need to compete with other TX to get in a block.

When transactions have to compete for blockspace the following sorting is used.

• The transactions are sorted by priority
• The highest priority (coin age) TX are selected until the block is 5% filled
• The remaining transactions are sorted by TX Fee / byte
• The highest fee paying TX are selected for the remaining 95% of the block space
• The rest of the TX are left into pool for the next sorting

If you studied statistics, this is straight forward problem to solve, but as others have stated about 76 times already... hard coding a fee value will not solve a statistical equation.  Best to get a wallet app that is mempool aware with sliding fees, or do the stats yourself if the mempool ever fills up again.

[goosoodude]

I've read somewhere that if you make the transaction fee from 10k Satoshi to 10001 Satoshi then your transaction will be more preferred than the other transaction whose fee is 10k Satoshi.

If they are the same in size (byte) and miners sort by fee per byte this would put you ahead in the list slightly, yes.

Slightly!!!!!!  Majority of people use 10k Satoshi as transaction fee and if we use 10001 Satoshi then it should give us a major advantage over others.

The transaction fee is a statistical question... As long as the entire mempool can fit in one block (which it can as of right now), you can go all the way down to 1 sat/byte.

The minimum TX fee to stay on the network (as of today) is 1000 sat / 1000 bytes (or 1 sat/byte).

If your TX has old coins, it is possible that the priority is high enough (as of today 57,600,000) to stay on the network with no TX fee

If the mempool is larger than one block (1,000,000 bytes) then your TX will need to compete with other TX to get in a block.

When transactions have to compete for blockspace the following sorting is used.

• The transactions are sorted by priority
• The highest priority (coin age) TX are selected until the block is 5% filled
• The remaining transactions are sorted by TX Fee / byte
• The highest fee paying TX are selected for the remaining 95% of the block space
• The rest of the TX are left into pool for the next sorting

If you studied statistics, this is straight forward problem to solve, but as others have stated about 76 times already... hard coding a fee value will not solve a statistical equation.  Best to get a wallet app that is mempool aware with sliding fees, or do the stats yourself if the mempool ever fills up again.

Why doesn't the miner chose the transactions to include judging from the satoshi per byte level? I mean there are miners that create 1 transaction blocks in order to get propagated fast. Then there are miners that include huge transactions only because they have a higher fee than other transactions but in fact these huge transactions make the block huge. And less fast to propagate.

So why doesn't they simply chose transactions from it's size proportionated to it's fee? Sounds like the more sane approach.

[d4n13]

Why doesn't the miner chose the transactions to include judging from the satoshi per byte level? I mean there are miners that create 1 transaction blocks in order to get propagated fast. Then there are miners that include huge transactions only because they have a higher fee than other transactions but in fact these huge transactions make the block huge. And less fast to propagate.

So why doesn't they simply chose transactions from it's size proportionated to it's fee? Sounds like the more sane approach.

Miners get to include whatever TXs they want.  I outlined the "reference implementation" that is already coded for them.  If they code their own TX selection they are free to use whatever rules they want.

[Epileptic_Neurosurgeon]

I'm afraid it's something you just have to get used to as it's going to get worse, even if they temporarily improve it.

[talkbitcoin]

the transaction "confirmation" time is back to normal and it is at a decent time .

[Number6]

the transaction "confirmation" time is back to normal and it is at a decent time .

Agreed.

I both sent and received coins last night in a timely manner, they both confirmed within a short amount of time. The one I received had a fee and the one I sent out did not and both took the same amount of time to get 6 confirmations.

[VirosaGITS]

I can confirm with this;

c25077f152401fd7245d4b99dbd2a240380680118e824bf8b85bcca567fa34b8

150 confirmations instead of the usual 50-70 during the "stress test". Over 24 hours.

[Blawpaw]

yeah you bet it sucks... and if you want to speed up the process you will need to pay higher fees!
 The Block size needs to be increased to avoid these issues!

[goosoodude]

Why doesn't the miner chose the transactions to include judging from the satoshi per byte level? I mean there are miners that create 1 transaction blocks in order to get propagated fast. Then there are miners that include huge transactions only because they have a higher fee than other transactions but in fact these huge transactions make the block huge. And less fast to propagate.

So why doesn't they simply chose transactions from it's size proportionated to it's fee? Sounds like the more sane approach.

Miners get to include whatever TXs they want.  I outlined the "reference implementation" that is already coded for them.  If they code their own TX selection they are free to use whatever rules they want.

I understood that. What i ask is why the miners doesn't include transactions based on the fee AND the size. I mean when they include a big transaction only because it has a bigger fee than others then they will lose either because they could have include many small transactions that in total could create more fees for him and because such a big block can be propagated through the nodes more slowly. They risk getting their block orphaned.

That was what i was wondering about.

[g1974ak]

In my experience it takes around 10-15 minutes for a conformation. How much are you sending and how much are you spending in transaction fees?

Lucky you. It is very rarely that one transaction have confirmation so easy and so fast. I use coinbase wallet and I don't know how is the amount of fee paid for every transaction because the fee is paid from my wallet (coinbase) but normally the confirmation needed much more time than 10-15 min. Seems that this have to do with the block sizes that must be increased. There are discussions about this but until now no agreement.

[NewLiberty]

Why doesn't the miner chose the transactions to include judging from the satoshi per byte level? I mean there are miners that create 1 transaction blocks in order to get propagated fast. Then there are miners that include huge transactions only because they have a higher fee than other transactions but in fact these huge transactions make the block huge. And less fast to propagate.

So why doesn't they simply chose transactions from it's size proportionated to it's fee? Sounds like the more sane approach.

Miners get to include whatever TXs they want.  I outlined the "reference implementation" that is already coded for them.  If they code their own TX selection they are free to use whatever rules they want.

I understood that. What i ask is why the miners doesn't include transactions based on the fee AND the size. I mean when they include a big transaction only because it has a bigger fee than others then they will lose either because they could have include many small transactions that in total could create more fees for him and because such a big block can be propagated through the nodes more slowly. They risk getting their block orphaned.

That was what i was wondering about.

Fees are per size in Bitcoin Core as follows:

A transaction may be safely sent without fees if these conditions are met:

• It is smaller than 1,000 bytes.
• All outputs are 0.01 BTC or larger.
• Its priority is large enough (see the Technical Info section below)

Otherwise, the reference implementation will round up the transaction size to the next thousand bytes and add a fee of 0.1 mBTC (0.0001 BTC) per thousand bytes.  As an example, a fee of 0.1 mBTC (0.0001 BTC) would be added to a 746 byte transaction, and a fee of 0.2 mBTC (0.0002 BTC) would be added to a 1001 byte transaction.  Users may increase the default 0.0001 BTC/kB fee setting, but cannot control transaction fees for each transaction.  Bitcoin-Qt does prompt the user to accept the fee before the transaction is sent (they may cancel the transaction if they are not willing to pay the fee).

Note that a typical transaction is 500 bytes, so the typical transaction fee for low-priority transactions is 0.1 mBTC (0.0001 BTC), regardless of the number of bitcoins sent.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_fees

[goosoodude]

Why doesn't the miner chose the transactions to include judging from the satoshi per byte level? I mean there are miners that create 1 transaction blocks in order to get propagated fast. Then there are miners that include huge transactions only because they have a higher fee than other transactions but in fact these huge transactions make the block huge. And less fast to propagate.

So why doesn't they simply chose transactions from it's size proportionated to it's fee? Sounds like the more sane approach.

Miners get to include whatever TXs they want.  I outlined the "reference implementation" that is already coded for them.  If they code their own TX selection they are free to use whatever rules they want.

I understood that. What i ask is why the miners doesn't include transactions based on the fee AND the size. I mean when they include a big transaction only because it has a bigger fee than others then they will lose either because they could have include many small transactions that in total could create more fees for him and because such a big block can be propagated through the nodes more slowly. They risk getting their block orphaned.

That was what i was wondering about.

Fees are per size in Bitcoin Core as follows:

A transaction may be safely sent without fees if these conditions are met:

• It is smaller than 1,000 bytes.
• All outputs are 0.01 BTC or larger.
• Its priority is large enough (see the Technical Info section below)

Otherwise, the reference implementation will round up the transaction size to the next thousand bytes and add a fee of 0.1 mBTC (0.0001 BTC) per thousand bytes.  As an example, a fee of 0.1 mBTC (0.0001 BTC) would be added to a 746 byte transaction, and a fee of 0.2 mBTC (0.0002 BTC) would be added to a 1001 byte transaction.  Users may increase the default 0.0001 BTC/kB fee setting, but cannot control transaction fees for each transaction.  Bitcoin-Qt does prompt the user to accept the fee before the transaction is sent (they may cancel the transaction if they are not willing to pay the fee).

Note that a typical transaction is 500 bytes, so the typical transaction fee for low-priority transactions is 0.1 mBTC (0.0001 BTC), regardless of the number of bitcoins sent.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_fees

Yes, but that doesn't mean the miners are using the same model. It's only a minimum fee that a transaction has to meet in order to be able to be accepted by the miners.

But miners should care about fee per satoshi or millibit. And about the general size of the block, leading to faster or slower propagation. It might be that the spamtransactions would not be worth it then.