Blocks are full.

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

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.

If Amazon accepted bitcoin most people would still use credit cards, just like most people buying from newegg use credit card.

Before Amazon's volume could grow large enough for there to be a serious blockchain problem, your typical Tom Dick and Harry would have to own bitcoin and choose to spend it, and that's years away.

[1714819338]

1714819338

[1714819338]

1714819338

[1714819338]

1714819338

[SebastianJu]

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.

Unfortunately this is not really true. I got a number of people complaining about transactions not going through because they chose a standard fee of some kind. Looks like there are enough wallets out there that still can't deal with spam attacks.


Windpower

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?

Some fear that it will be the first step only and have nightmares of much bigger blocks and that then someone could not run a node anymore.

Others explicitely don't want it because they want a fee market. Which means alot higher fees. They have the impression that bitcoin is a network for high amount transfers and that all small transfers are spam only.

Well, then there is the accusation that some of them do this only to promote lightning network. Which is practically using another network instead using bitcoin directly. Can't say that I give that idea much chances. Bitcoiners will be hard to convince.

And some others say that we first should implement SegWit. Which is a good thing but will get to it's borders relatively fast too. It can not help for very long.


AliceWonderMiscreations

If Amazon accepted bitcoin most people would still use credit cards, just like most people buying from newegg use credit card.

Before Amazon's volume could grow large enough for there to be a serious blockchain problem, your typical Tom Dick and Harry would have to own bitcoin and choose to spend it, and that's years away.

Sure, amazon would probably avoid advertising this. Though even the community might already put pressure on the network only by realizing the chances showing up with amazon adopting.

Though if the would advertise situation could change fast.

It's a very theoretical question anyway. No serious business would invest now in something bitcoin related. With all the news of apocalypse because of forks, non working bitcoin transactions, fights in the community and and and. Nobody invests into such an unstable area.

[RealBitcoin]

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.

Another 'network durability stress test' a.k.a 'ddos' a.k.a 'spam' a.k.a 'butthurt bitcoin classic users' ?

[SebastianJu]

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.

Another 'network durability stress test' a.k.a 'ddos' a.k.a 'spam' a.k.a 'butthurt bitcoin classic users' ?

Well, then that/these person(s) have deep pockets I guess. I wonder who could think that this is a good investment at all.

Besides, wasn't there a pretty cheap way to spam with some metainformations? Though when this attack really is so expensive... dunno. Doesn't sound smart in any way.

[RealBitcoin]

Well, then that/these person(s) have deep pockets I guess. I wonder who could think that this is a good investment at all.

Besides, wasn't there a pretty cheap way to spam with some metainformations? Though when this attack really is so expensive... dunno. Doesn't sound smart in any way.

Well there was some big institution behind it that is clear, maybe some jealous bank sponsored it? Who knows.

It looks like it's over, the TX/S shrunk to half since when I checked last time a few hours ago, and the unconfirmed ones as well.

And now the mempool is starting to shrink again back to normal levels.


People need to get used to these stuffs, it will happen many more times, and we cant let this shit destroy our community.

[nicked]

I'm just your "average Joe", and me and all of my average Joe friends, and all of the rest of the average Joe's out there are not going to use bitcoin if it takes more than ten minutes for a transaction and high fees will soon price alot of people out.  Those are the cold hard facts. You can kiss the fabled "mainstream adoption" goodbye.

[RealBitcoin]

I'm just your "average Joe", and me and all of my average Joe friends, and all of the rest of the average Joe's out there are not going to use bitcoin if it takes more than ten minutes for a transaction and high fees will soon price alot of people out.  Those are the cold hard facts. You can kiss the fabled "mainstream adoption" goodbye.

Nope, these attacks are not net positive.

How many people join bitcoin in a day? 5000-6000 tops?

Well, by doing an attack this scale probably worth millions of $$ to do, actually they are donating that money away to miners and it benefits existing users more than what we would lose over that 5000 people not joining.

So the bottom line:  Attacking the bitcoin network is always a net loss for the attacker and a net win for the network.


Not to mention it helps developers give them new ideas to protect the network with, which can be used for defense against future larger scale attacks.

[Eodguy149]

I'm just your "average Joe", and me and all of my average Joe friends, and all of the rest of the average Joe's out there are not going to use bitcoin if it takes more than ten minutes for a transaction and high fees will soon price alot of people out.  Those are the cold hard facts. You can kiss the fabled "mainstream adoption" goodbye.

I tend to agree with this logic. The development of an ever increasing fee market due to the block size constraint is the first time I've ever really been concerned for Bitcoin. It was originally developed as a peer to peer digital currency but that is slowly being changed. I'm not sure why individuals suddenly believe it should just be a settlement network. I'm not overly happy with core's current roadmap, if something isn't done Bitcoin will lose a lot of the qualities that made it so unique and exciting.

[SebastianJu]

Well, then that/these person(s) have deep pockets I guess. I wonder who could think that this is a good investment at all.

Besides, wasn't there a pretty cheap way to spam with some metainformations? Though when this attack really is so expensive... dunno. Doesn't sound smart in any way.

Well there was some big institution behind it that is clear, maybe some jealous bank sponsored it? Who knows.

It looks like it's over, the TX/S shrunk to half since when I checked last time a few hours ago, and the unconfirmed ones as well.

And now the mempool is starting to shrink again back to normal levels.


People need to get used to these stuffs, it will happen many more times, and we cant let this shit destroy our community.

Good to hear that it ends. Everytime it happens it brings up a lot of complaints. The forum get filled with it then. And surely that is nothing that will help bitcoin.

I'm really not sure about banks doing that. It would be a huge expense they would have to justify to their shareholders. Which will be too hard I think.

Besides that, they would fight the lightning network, which in my opinion, has the higher chance to transform bitcoin into a bank system similar to what satoshi wanted to get free from. I mean if it really ends so that the fees are very high then the solution will be that bitcoiners don't ever touch bitcoins anymore. Everything is dealt with in the lightning network then. Exchanges will accept fiat directly and bitcoiners never will see actual bitcoins. Safes alot of fees.

And those that can pay the bitcoin fees... well, who will it be? Big companies and banks. So that future holds a lot of risks to bitcoin. Ok, it might not get this worse but at the moment I don't see that there is something in the way of that development.

[nicked]

I'm just your "average Joe", and me and all of my average Joe friends, and all of the rest of the average Joe's out there are not going to use bitcoin if it takes more than ten minutes for a transaction and high fees will soon price alot of people out.  Those are the cold hard facts. You can kiss the fabled "mainstream adoption" goodbye.

Nope, these attacks are not net positive.

How many people join bitcoin in a day? 5000-6000 tops?

Well, by doing an attack this scale probably worth millions of $$ to do, actually they are donating that money away to miners and it benefits existing users more than what we would lose over that 5000 people not joining.

So the bottom line:  Attacking the bitcoin network is always a net loss for the attacker and a net win for the network.


Not to mention it helps developers give them new ideas to protect the network with, which can be used for defense against future larger scale attacks.

I don't think this is an attack or spam. This is just regular transactions that have what used to be regular fees, that aren't getting confirmed because there is not enough room in the blocks for them all. Raising fees won't fix that. Only a block size increase will do that.

[aarons6]

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.

If Amazon accepted bitcoin most people would still use credit cards, just like most people buying from newegg use credit card.

Before Amazon's volume could grow large enough for there to be a serious blockchain problem, your typical Tom Dick and Harry would have to own bitcoin and choose to spend it, and that's years away.

you do know you can buy things on amazon with bitcoin, through purse.io.

just make sure to enable 2fa if you keep bitcoin on that site.

[Lauda]

Another 'network durability stress test' a.k.a 'ddos' a.k.a 'spam' a.k.a 'butthurt bitcoin classic users' ?

Correct. Didn't you notice the shills saying that we need a 2 MB block size limit and that people should run Classic or BU?

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

It shouldn't matter and they should practice sending with proper fees so that in the future they are unaffected (currently only some are due to lower fees).

you do know you can buy things on amazon with bitcoin, through purse.io.

That's not the same as directly accepting Bitcoin.

I don't think this is an attack or spam. This is just regular transactions that have what used to be regular fees, that aren't getting confirmed because there is not enough room in the blocks for them all. Raising fees won't fix that. Only a block size increase will do that.

No. This is completely wrong. Did you even take a look at any graphics provided by me or someone else? Please read before posting.

[SebastianJu]

nicked

I don't think this is an attack or spam. This is just regular transactions that have what used to be regular fees, that aren't getting confirmed because there is not enough room in the blocks for them all. Raising fees won't fix that. Only a block size increase will do that.

SegWit will help too to some extent. It's only unfortunate that, till it kicks in, bitcoin might get a bad reputation as unreliable and slow. Since normal users without automatically adjusted fee don't care or want to investigate the reason. It doesn't work. That's it.

Besides, it looks like a spam but the limits show up on certain times of the day often enough too so that confusion comes up. This will get only worse until a solution of some kind is implemented. And it does not really look like we get a solution tomorrow.


Lauda


I wonder what you will do when you realize that the "proper fee" will rise exponentially. It is unavoidable that this happens without some solution coming through and kicking in fast. I wonder how fast SegWit will change the situation once implemented. It might take it's time too.

[arlene05973]

Right now Bitcoin's price is rallying and block are full. According to blockchain.info backlog of unconfirmed transactions is 11.6 MB right now and as far as I know there is now spam or stress test going on. How worse does it need to get?

........rallying and block are full.....

Pls, i'm sorry asking this for the second time. how does this affect the seller's or a buyer's?


Thanks

[RealBitcoin]

Correct. Didn't you notice the shills saying that we need a 2 MB block size limit and that people should run Classic or BU?

Hard to tell who is shill and who is not on this forum, and on reddit.

But I saw real shills on btc classic youtube videos, and +30 upvotes on shill coments when the whole video had less than 100 likes.

Whoever runs this shill campaign has planned it very well, because they are promoting it on every front.

[SebastianJu]

arlene05973

........rallying and block are full.....

Pls, i'm sorry asking this for the second time. how does this affect the seller's or a buyer's?


Thanks

It affects them so that bitcoin transactions with a standard fee might not get a confirmation for hours or even days.

So they would need to know about it to adjust the fee, they would need to use a wallet that does adjust the fee automatically or they would need to wait.

So the downside is that they pay more, not much more at the current time, or they would have a deal that can draw over a long time because no confirmation happens.


RealBitcoin

Correct. Didn't you notice the shills saying that we need a 2 MB block size limit and that people should run Classic or BU?

Hard to tell who is shill and who is not on this forum, and on reddit.

But I saw real shills on btc classic youtube videos, and +30 upvotes on shill coments when the whole video had less than 100 likes.

Whoever runs this shill campaign has planned it very well, because they are promoting it on every front.

I think it does not really need a shill army for that to happen. The only thing needed would be fans of he idea and a community that video was posted in right after release. For sure many of the viewers would upvote the vide.

Doesn't really mean that they have to be paid supporters or sockpuppet accounts. Of course it is possible that they are.

Well, I'm pretty sick of this political war. Emotions are heated up so much often that argumenting in a civilized manner becomes hard and tiring.

[tn211]

Well this problem was about to happen and i honestly don't understand why it's still a problem. How hard can it be to find a consensus in this story?
Wasn't the bitcoin community united?
Isn't bitcoin build cutting edge technology where we can vote to force a consensus?

[Lauda]

Hard to tell who is shill and who is not on this forum, and on reddit.

Actually it isn't. It depends on how much interaction you've had and how much reading you've done in these threads. Users that fail to listen to reason, that try spreading false information and FUD against Core constantly (even though they've been corrected several times) are really obvious (as an example).

Whoever runs this shill campaign has planned it very well, because they are promoting it on every front.

It is best to stay away from places such as r/btc. You would only waste your time there.

Isn't bitcoin build cutting edge technology where we can vote to force a consensus?

You can't technically force anything; that's the point of Bitcoin (you've confused it with something). Bitcoin requires consensus.

[SebastianJu]

Well this problem was about to happen and i honestly don't understand why it's still a problem. How hard can it be to find a consensus in this story?
Wasn't the bitcoin community united?
Isn't bitcoin build cutting edge technology where we can vote to force a consensus?

The community was united until now... unfortunately. It all ended when the 1mb blocksize limit was met. Something that was only implemented as a temporary spam prevention measure. Now it is held up as a basic rule of the protocol, like 21 million cap or 10 minutes blocks.

Voting at the moment could only work with a hard fork because community is so divided. And that sounds like it would be a nasty battle. I really don't like thinking about it.

[RealBitcoin]

I think it does not really need a shill army for that to happen. The only thing needed would be fans of he idea and a community that video was posted in right after release. For sure many of the viewers would upvote the vide.

Doesn't really mean that they have to be paid supporters or sockpuppet accounts. Of course it is possible that they are.

Well, I'm pretty sick of this political war. Emotions are heated up so much often that argumenting in a civilized manner becomes hard and tiring.

There is always a master shill that organizes the shilling, and a few of his soldiers of his that reinforce his arguments.

And then there are the sheeps and fanboys that go along with everything.

Actually it isn't. It depends on how much interaction you've had and how much reading you've done in these threads. Users that fail to listen to reason, that try spreading false information and FUD against Core constantly (even though they've been corrected several times) are really obvious (as an example).

On the internet its hard to tell, you know that phenomena where you cant tell on the internet if  person is very sarcastic or really that dumb.

It is best to stay away from places such as r/btc. You would only waste your time there.

Luckily 'btc' has less google seraches than 'bitcoin' , so most newbies will more likely join /bitcoin subreddit after their first google search.

So for now we have the upper hand and the majority of will of the users.

https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=btc%2C%20bitcoin&date=today%2012-m&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT