Bitcoin Forum
July 18, 2018, 03:10:41 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.16.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Blocks are full.  (Read 14683 times)
2legit2
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 06, 2016, 04:16:20 PM
 #221

yeah they are full for a while already and people actually need to do something about it, i think the best would be to increase the block size limit

1531926641
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1531926641

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1531926641
Reply with quote  #2

1531926641
Report to moderator
Automated Bitcoin Fork Extraction Tool WE DO TOUGH WALLETS: BCH | BTG | BCD | SBTC | UBTC | B2X | BCX | BTF Electrum 2FA, Trezor, Ledger, SegWit, Bech32
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1531926641
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1531926641

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1531926641
Reply with quote  #2

1531926641
Report to moderator
1531926641
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1531926641

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1531926641
Reply with quote  #2

1531926641
Report to moderator
quadriple7
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252
Merit: 250



View Profile
February 06, 2016, 05:42:58 PM
 #222

i think it is the only solutiuon is to increasce size limit.
mavericklm
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742
Merit: 500


View Profile
February 07, 2016, 07:11:14 AM
 #223

https://blockchain.info/block/000000000000000006a501607938025b9b10c2e4c61db861ff1b03724fb09300

some are ''full'', some are full of shit
aarons6
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400
Merit: 1003


View Profile
February 07, 2016, 07:20:52 AM
 #224

i think the best solution would be to code something in the core that rejects a block if it has no transactions.

this way the pools that mine empty blocks get NO REWARDS.

mavericklm
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742
Merit: 500


View Profile
February 07, 2016, 08:20:45 AM
 #225

+1
Ruhtilg
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 138
Merit: 100


View Profile
February 07, 2016, 09:21:14 AM
 #226

i think the best solution would be to code something in the core that rejects a block if it has no transactions.

this way the pools that mine empty blocks get NO REWARDS.



I agree with this proposal. The resource in bitcoin is limited, we have to use it properly.

But what is the lowest limit of the acceptable block, 10 transactions or 50 transaction?
aarons6
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400
Merit: 1003


View Profile
February 07, 2016, 09:33:17 AM
 #227

i think the best solution would be to code something in the core that rejects a block if it has no transactions.

this way the pools that mine empty blocks get NO REWARDS.



I agree with this proposal. The resource in bitcoin is limited, we have to use it properly.

But what is the lowest limit of the acceptable block, 10 transactions or 50 transaction?

lol a whole new thing for the devs to argue about..

but yeah, anything is better then zero.. its not fair for the pools to get rewards when they ignore transactions.
mavericklm
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742
Merit: 500


View Profile
February 07, 2016, 10:07:14 AM
 #228

256kb or 128kb.....
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1562


GUNBOT Licenses -15% with ref. code 'GrumpyKitty'


View Profile WWW
February 07, 2016, 10:23:59 AM
 #229

i think the best solution would be to code something in the core that rejects a block if it has no transactions.
this way the pools that mine empty blocks get NO REWARDS.
I agree with this proposal. The resource in bitcoin is limited, we have to use it properly.
But what is the lowest limit of the acceptable block, 10 transactions or 50 transaction?
What prevents them from creating a few transactions themselves to cheat the system?

yeah they are full for a while already and people actually need to do something about it, i think the best would be to increase the block size limit
The system is fine right now; even the mem pool is shrinking. Currently 1759.66796875 (KB).

The blocks are not exactly full.
Some are and some aren't; people are being hyperbolic about it.

.FORTUNE.JACK.
      ▄▄███████▄▄
   ▄████▀▀ ▄ ██████▄
  ████ ▄▄███ ████████
 █████▌▐███▌ ▀▄ ▀█████
███████▄██▀▀▀▀▄████████
█████▀▄▄▄▄█████████████
████▄▄▄▄ █████████████
 ██████▌ ███▀████████
  ███████▄▀▄████████
   ▀█████▀▀███████▀
      ▀▀██████▀▀
         
         █
...FortuneJack.com                                             
...THE BIGGEST BITCOIN GAMBLING SITE
       ▄▄█████████▄▄
    ▄█████████████████▄
  ▄█████████████████████▄
 ▄██
█████████▀███████████▄
██████████▀   ▀██████████
█████████▀       ▀█████████
████████           ████████
████████▄   ▄ ▄   ▄████████
██████████▀   ▀██████████
 ▀██
█████████████████████▀
  ▀██
███████████████████▀
    ▀█████████████████▀
       ▀▀█████████▀▀
#JACKMATE
WIN 1 BTC
▄█████████████████████████▄
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
██████████▀█████▀██████████
███████▀░░▀░░░░░▀░░▀███████
██████▌░░░░░░░░░░░░░▐██████
██████░░░░██░░░██░░░░██████
█████▌░░░░▀▀░░░▀▀░░░░▐█████
██████▄░░▄▄▄░░░▄▄▄░░▄██████
████████▄▄███████▄▄████████

███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
▀█████████████████████████▀
Laosai
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 462
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 07, 2016, 10:29:55 AM
 #230

i think the best solution would be to code something in the core that rejects a block if it has no transactions.

this way the pools that mine empty blocks get NO REWARDS.



Not a bad idea in itself, but they could just create 1 satoshi transactions to put in those blocks. Hence they wouldn't be empty anymore ^^

What's could maybe help, would be to only allow to mine full blocks no?
If only full (or let's say 80% full) blocks were minable, it would make transactions a bit slower but would also answer the size problem for now no?

bit-freedom
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 448
Merit: 251



View Profile
February 07, 2016, 10:36:08 AM
 #231

i think the best solution would be to code something in the core that rejects a block if it has no transactions.

this way the pools that mine empty blocks get NO REWARDS.



Not a bad idea in itself, but they could just create 1 satoshi transactions to put in those blocks. Hence they wouldn't be empty anymore ^^

What's could maybe help, would be to only allow to mine full blocks no?
If only full (or let's say 80% full) blocks were minable, it would make transactions a bit slower but would also answer the size problem for now no?

it's impossible adopt this solution and even is not democratic.
there is a natural solution about a block empty... simply in the long time it will become more difficult find one and not insert some txs and the fee process will help in this process... all miners probably could be more interested in fee txs than block itself (fee > block reward)


````█`████████████ ````███ ██████████
``███`████████████```█████ ██████████
█████`████████████`███████`██████████
█████`████████████`███████ ██████████
█████`████████████`███████`██████████
█████`████████████ ███████ ██████████
██▀▄██`█`▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███`███████████
`▄██`███`███████████████`██████████
████████`█████████████
``██████`█████████████`██ ██████████
``██████`█████████████`██ ██████████
``██████`█████████████`██ ██████████
``██████`█████████████`██ ██████████
``███▄██```````````````██ ██████████
````▄██ ▄███████████████ █████████
``▄██_▄█████████████▄██`▄███████████
````````````````````▄██`▄█████████
jjgggk
ZAZA

█▀▀▀▀▀▀█
█ █▀▀▀ █
█  ▄██ █
█ ██▀  █
█ ▄▄▄█ █
█ █▀▀▀ █
█  ▄██ █
█ ██▀  █
█ ▄▄▄█ █
█▄▄▄▄▄▄█

█▀▀▀▀▀▀█
█ █▀▀▀ █
█  ▄██ █
█ ██▀  █
█ ▄▄▄█ █
█ █▀▀▀ █
█  ▄██ █
█ ██▀  █
█ ▄▄▄█ █
█▄▄▄▄▄▄█
bearexin
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 256
Merit: 100


View Profile
February 07, 2016, 10:40:39 AM
 #232

I am not with increasing the block size, that was just a one-time incident and it's very rare for pools of transactions to accumulate like that, normally my even small transactions doesn't need more than one or two blocks to confirm. I think the current system already proved it's efficiency overtime. No need for a very big change currently.

aarons6
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400
Merit: 1003


View Profile
February 07, 2016, 10:47:33 AM
 #233

i think the best solution would be to code something in the core that rejects a block if it has no transactions.

this way the pools that mine empty blocks get NO REWARDS.



Not a bad idea in itself, but they could just create 1 satoshi transactions to put in those blocks. Hence they wouldn't be empty anymore ^^

What's could maybe help, would be to only allow to mine full blocks no?
If only full (or let's say 80% full) blocks were minable, it would make transactions a bit slower but would also answer the size problem for now no?

it's impossible adopt this solution and even is not democratic.
there is a natural solution about a block empty... simply in the long time it will become more difficult find one and not insert some txs and the fee process will help in this process... all miners probably could be more interested in fee txs than block itself (fee > block reward)

yes but the largest pools dont pay the fee to the miners.. so that means they have zero incentive to build large tx blocks.

1Referee
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582
Merit: 1140

BTC PLS


View Profile
February 07, 2016, 10:53:13 AM
 #234

I am not with increasing the block size, that was just a one-time incident and it's very rare for pools of transactions to accumulate like that, normally my even small transactions doesn't need more than one or two blocks to confirm. I think the current system already proved it's efficiency overtime. No need for a very big change currently.

If a mega merchant as Amazon is accepting Bitcoin as payment option, then all blocks will be full nearly instantly. That might be a reason for them NOT to accept Bitcoin payments as 1MB is simply not enough. 2MB is what we need if we want to attract mega merchants.

disclaimer201
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 1000


View Profile
February 07, 2016, 11:02:27 AM
 #235

I am not with increasing the block size, that was just a one-time incident and it's very rare for pools of transactions to accumulate like that, normally my even small transactions doesn't need more than one or two blocks to confirm. I think the current system already proved it's efficiency overtime. No need for a very big change currently.

If a mega merchant as Amazon is accepting Bitcoin as payment option, then all blocks will be full nearly instantly. That might be a reason for them NOT to accept Bitcoin payments as 1MB is simply not enough. 2MB is what we need if we want to attract mega merchants.

Agreed. I think that's why it isn't time for that step in bitcoin's evolution yet. We have to create the infrastructure first allowing a huge increase in fast transactions before Bitcoin will be considered as a payment option by market giants. I'm willing to wait until April/May to see if anything useful and realistic can come out of LN or whatever trick there is to allow more transactions. One thing is for sure: Bitcoin isn't ready for large fees at this point of its development!
Laosai
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 462
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 07, 2016, 11:03:51 AM
 #236

i think the best solution would be to code something in the core that rejects a block if it has no transactions.

this way the pools that mine empty blocks get NO REWARDS.



Not a bad idea in itself, but they could just create 1 satoshi transactions to put in those blocks. Hence they wouldn't be empty anymore ^^

What's could maybe help, would be to only allow to mine full blocks no?
If only full (or let's say 80% full) blocks were minable, it would make transactions a bit slower but would also answer the size problem for now no?

it's impossible adopt this solution and even is not democratic.
there is a natural solution about a block empty... simply in the long time it will become more difficult find one and not insert some txs and the fee process will help in this process... all miners probably could be more interested in fee txs than block itself (fee > block reward)

Hmm... I don't understand, why wouldn't it be possible to implement such a solutions?
Seems rather obvious to me that you can put limits to the system no?

Maybe I miss some technical grasp about that though ^^'

Learn007
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28
Merit: 0


View Profile
February 07, 2016, 12:38:02 PM
 #237

yes the blocks are full, but it requires that all bitcoin software agrees on what the limit is, otherwise there would be several incompatible versions of bitcoin. it is a hot debate whether increasing the blocksize or not, and by how much and when is going to make bitcoin more centralized or decentralized, whether it is in the spirit of the original whitepaper, and generally whether it will help make bitcoin become a useful currency alternative to millions of people.
Matias
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182
Merit: 100


View Profile
February 07, 2016, 01:28:18 PM
 #238

i think the best solution would be to code something in the core that rejects a block if it has no transactions.

this way the pools that mine empty blocks get NO REWARDS.



Not a bad idea in itself, but they could just create 1 satoshi transactions to put in those blocks. Hence they wouldn't be empty anymore ^^

What's could maybe help, would be to only allow to mine full blocks no?
If only full (or let's say 80% full) blocks were minable, it would make transactions a bit slower but would also answer the size problem for now no?

it's impossible adopt this solution and even is not democratic.
there is a natural solution about a block empty... simply in the long time it will become more difficult find one and not insert some txs and the fee process will help in this process... all miners probably could be more interested in fee txs than block itself (fee > block reward)

yes but the largest pools dont pay the fee to the miners.. so that means they have zero incentive to build large tx blocks.



Isn't it exactly the opposite? When pool keeps TX fees to itself it has bigger incentive to build large tx blocks.
AliceWonderMiscreations
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182
Merit: 100


View Profile WWW
February 07, 2016, 02:32:59 PM
 #239

rejecting empty blocks is bad.

Besides it isn't enforceable. All a miner has to do is create transactions from addresses they control to addresses they control. The transaction only exists in their block, so it doesn't even cost them a tx fee if they don't win the block.

As the block reward goes down, empty blocks will be a problem that takes care of itself anyway.

I hereby reserve the right to sometimes be wrong
Mastsetad
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 588
Merit: 250


Join The Blockchain Revolution In Logistics


View Profile
February 08, 2016, 08:29:33 PM
 #240

rejecting empty blocks is bad.

Besides it isn't enforceable. All a miner has to do is create transactions from addresses they control to addresses they control. The transaction only exists in their block, so it doesn't even cost them a tx fee if they don't win the block.

As the block reward goes down, empty blocks will be a problem that takes care of itself anyway.

Yes, when the block reward is smaller, the transaction fee becomes larger, so the pool will create larger blocks.

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!