Blocks are full.

[SebastianJu]

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.

Exactly... the risk for big companies like amazon would be way too high that they can not use it after developing it.

But you know what... those who say 1mb is sufficient claim that bitcoin was never intended to be used by amazon. Bitcoin is only a high amount transfer system for the rich. Didn't you know that?

[1714057682]

1714057682

[1714057682]

1714057682

[SebastianJu]

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 ^^'

He means that this problem will solve from itself once the block halving happened often enough. Then the fees for a block will be a bigger part of the reward for finding a block and no pool can include no transactions anymore.

[Mastsetad]

He means that this problem will solve from itself once the block halving happened often enough. Then the fees for a block will be a bigger part of the reward for finding a block and no pool can include no transactions anymore.

When the internet speed is very fast for all the miners, the benefit of smaller bock (fast block relay speed) will diminish. All of them will include more transactions.

[SebastianJu]

He means that this problem will solve from itself once the block halving happened often enough. Then the fees for a block will be a bigger part of the reward for finding a block and no pool can include no transactions anymore.

When the internet speed is very fast for all the miners, the benefit of smaller bock (fast block relay speed) will diminish. All of them will include more transactions.

It's not only the internet speed. The network, which means all of the miners, have to verify blocks and the bigger the blocks the higher the time needed to verify them. Which means bigger blocks need more time to confirm.

I thinke the best way to solve this is more transactions, so higher fee and dropping block reward.

[mickiya]

He means that this problem will solve from itself once the block halving happened often enough. Then the fees for a block will be a bigger part of the reward for finding a block and no pool can include no transactions anymore.

When the internet speed is very fast for all the miners, the benefit of smaller bock (fast block relay speed) will diminish. All of them will include more transactions.

It's not only the internet speed. The network, which means all of the miners, have to verify blocks and the bigger the blocks the higher the time needed to verify them. Which means bigger blocks need more time to confirm.

I thinke the best way to solve this is more transactions, so higher fee and dropping block reward.

Does it mean we have to have fast CPU or powerful computer to do that? Is that required for ordinary Core wallet holders?

[Lauda]

Does it mean we have to have fast CPU or powerful computer to do that? Is that required for ordinary Core wallet holders?

Define 'ordinary Core wallet holders'? If you are using Bitcoin Core, then you need to sync up with the network in order to send out/see received transactions. However, unless you're running full nodes you don't really need to bother yourself with the requirements.

[Mastsetad]

Does it mean we have to have fast CPU or powerful computer to do that? Is that required for ordinary Core wallet holders?

Define 'ordinary Core wallet holders'? If you are using Bitcoin Core, then you need to sync up with the network in order to send out/see received transactions. However, unless you're running full nodes you don't really need to bother yourself with the requirements.

I run the Bitcoin Core, with all the default settings. Am I classified as a full node user? I have low end CPU.

[Matias]

My PC is bought few years ago, so it is surely low end. I run full node. Bitcoin core takes less than 1% of cpu and bandwith.

[Lauda]

I run the Bitcoin Core, with all the default settings. Am I classified as a full node user? I have low end CPU.

Technically yes. There's good information on Bitcoin.org in regards to full nodes. Albeit if you don't forward port 8333 and run it constantly you don't really have a full node.

My PC is bought few years ago, so it is surely low end. I run full node. Bitcoin core takes less than 1% of cpu and bandwith.

The age of a PC does not really tell us anything. How about you share the specifications?

[Matias]

I run the Bitcoin Core, with all the default settings. Am I classified as a full node user? I have low end CPU.

Technically yes. There's good information on Bitcoin.org in regards to full nodes. Albeit if you don't forward port 8333 and run it constantly you don't really have a full node.

My PC is bought few years ago, so it is surely low end. I run full node. Bitcoin core takes less than 1% of cpu and bandwith.

The age of a PC does not really tell us anything. How about you share the specifications?

I'll do it when I get back home (I don't remember them by heart). But it wasn't any high end machine even when I bought it.

[Edwardard]

I run the Bitcoin Core, with all the default settings. Am I classified as a full node user? I have low end CPU.

Technically yes. There's good information on Bitcoin.org in regards to full nodes. Albeit if you don't forward port 8333 and run it constantly you don't really have a full node.

My PC is bought few years ago, so it is surely low end. I run full node. Bitcoin core takes less than 1% of cpu and bandwith.

The age of a PC does not really tell us anything. How about you share the specifications?

I have the Intel CPU G1610. I used it to mine as well as run Bitcoin Core. I do not see any problem.

[SebastianJu]

He means that this problem will solve from itself once the block halving happened often enough. Then the fees for a block will be a bigger part of the reward for finding a block and no pool can include no transactions anymore.

When the internet speed is very fast for all the miners, the benefit of smaller bock (fast block relay speed) will diminish. All of them will include more transactions.

It's not only the internet speed. The network, which means all of the miners, have to verify blocks and the bigger the blocks the higher the time needed to verify them. Which means bigger blocks need more time to confirm.

I thinke the best way to solve this is more transactions, so higher fee and dropping block reward.

Does it mean we have to have fast CPU or powerful computer to do that? Is that required for ordinary Core wallet holders?

Even if you would run a full node, 2 MB are far away from any need to upgrade your cpu or something. It's one block in average each 10 minutes. That can be very easily handle by practically every computer nowadays.

[Cryptology]

The correct statement is 'some blocks are full'. You can't just jump to conclusions based on data recovered in the last few hours. Out of the last few blocks I see a few at around 750kb.

It is frustrating how much energy is being wasted.  Just scale the blocksize  already...

That can be a dangerous act.

i have not been into all this bitcoin stuff for so long , but from all i read so far , i cant realy see why so much people are hating on bigger block sizes. Becuse all i can see and hear right now is that bitcoins would benfit from it a great deal.

Because you have no IT background and have not done adequate research. How could you jump to such conclusions? With a block size of 2 MB it is possible to construct a transaction that would take over 10 minutes to validate which would harm the network.

Is it correct to say that blocks are full now?

[BitUsher]

The correct statement is 'some blocks are full'. You can't just jump to conclusions based on data recovered in the last few hours. Out of the last few blocks I see a few at around 750kb.

It is frustrating how much energy is being wasted.  Just scale the blocksize  already...

That can be a dangerous act.

i have not been into all this bitcoin stuff for so long , but from all i read so far , i cant realy see why so much people are hating on bigger block sizes. Becuse all i can see and hear right now is that bitcoins would benfit from it a great deal.

Because you have no IT background and have not done adequate research. How could you jump to such conclusions? With a block size of 2 MB it is possible to construct a transaction that would take over 10 minutes to validate which would harm the network.

Is it correct to say that blocks are full now?

Yes , Appears to be a spam attack. Users are suggested to pay 2-4 pennies usd more per tx (most wallets automatically adjust these days) to insure their txs immediately get in the next block. Here are some beautiful pictures of the culprits --







Look at how they differ from other tx's visually represented in the background.

[Lauda]

Is it correct to say that blocks are full now?

Full because of natural growth? No. Full because of an on-going spam attack that created a huge backlog? Yes.



It is pretty clear that somebody is doing this on purpose.

[Dissonance]

How long can they keep this up ?

[BitUsher]

How long can they keep this up ?

It is costing them a least 5-10k a day... so depends on how deep their pockets are. Normal users with a proper wallet that adjusts fees dynamically are unaffected . My txs have been getting through in the immediate block with fees ranging from 5 - 11 pennies per tx.

It will be fun to see this attack persist if it is funded large bank or government and watch as they both spur the adoption of segwit in April and run up millions of dollars in fees.

[Cryptology]

It is pretty clear that somebody is doing this on purpose.

Agreed. That data points in that direction. In any case for an average bitcoin user it really doesn't matter why block are full.

[BitUsher]

It is pretty clear that somebody is doing this on purpose.

Agreed. That data points in that direction. In any case for an average bitcoin user it really doesn't matter why block are full.

Its a good thing most modern wallets dynamically adjust fees automatically in real time... There are a fee stranglers that need to be updated though.

[Windpower]

He means that this problem will solve from itself once the block halving happened often enough. Then the fees for a block will be a bigger part of the reward for finding a block and no pool can include no transactions anymore.

When the internet speed is very fast for all the miners, the benefit of smaller bock (fast block relay speed) will diminish. All of them will include more transactions.

It's not only the internet speed. The network, which means all of the miners, have to verify blocks and the bigger the blocks the higher the time needed to verify them. Which means bigger blocks need more time to confirm.

I thinke the best way to solve this is more transactions, so higher fee and dropping block reward.

So pretty much even if we raise the block size, it is going to do nothing. Wow. Why is everyone making a fuss over it then?