We touch the 4 tx per second !

[Meuh6879]

  Rise, baby, rise !

http://statoshi.info/dashboard/db/transactions and http://btcaudio.tk/live/



SW or BigBlock ... ?

[Lauda]

What is supposed to be special here? Data over time is more important. Although this is still far from the theoretical 7 TPS.

[shorena]

You missed the important metric IMHO, at least for the last few days.

[ingiltere]

But some big pools still don't accept any Tx's. We should do something about these Chinese pools. Otherwise delayed payments are not healthy for usable Bitcoin economy. I want to use my coins in marketplaces without any delay.

[NorrisK]

But some big pools still don't accept any Tx's. We should do something about these Chinese pools. Otherwise delayed payments are not healthy for usable Bitcoin economy. I want to use my coins in marketplaces without any delay.

Agreed.. They are not accepting the TX's out of greed, which imo is completely insane..

I mean, it is not like they are missing 1/100 blocks because they are not accepting Tx's.. The increase in blocks they hit is probably only theoretical..

How about the block reward is changed to being dependant on having accepted Tx's in the blocks? Something simple like: "If queed Tx > 1000 and block Tx's < xxx, than block reward is 0"

That way, they would need to include Tx's in their blocks to get paid.

[tyz]

Well, 4 transactions per second is still much too less, if Bitcoin should enter the mainstream one time.

240 transations per minute
14400 transations per hour
345600 transactions per day (!) 

[makingwin1]

well for one thing is good because it means that bitcoin is getting more and more popular at a rapid pace though it also bad because we will soon have to do something about the block limit

[Lauda]

You missed the important metric IMHO, at least for the last few days.

Someone did mention this on IRC if I recall correctly. It seems like another attempted attack on the network?

345600 transactions per day (!) 

Does seem like a decent number for on chain transactions right now.

[wayniac30]

I'm not to happy getting closer to the limit but it's good we are gaining popularity.

[calkob]

I have never seen blockchain.infos ticker moving so fast, transactions have definatly increased, Bitcoin is about to explode......lol  

[jonald_fyookball]

But some big pools still don't accept any Tx's. We should do something about these Chinese pools. Otherwise delayed payments are not healthy for usable Bitcoin economy. I want to use my coins in marketplaces without any delay.

Agreed.. They are not accepting the TX's out of greed, which imo is completely insane..

I mean, it is not like they are missing 1/100 blocks because they are not accepting Tx's.. The increase in blocks they hit is probably only theoretical..

How about the block reward is changed to being dependant on having accepted Tx's in the blocks? Something simple like: "If queed Tx > 1000 and block Tx's < xxx, than block reward is 0"

That way, they would need to include Tx's in their blocks to get paid.

Then miners should not support that behavior and they should level the pool.

[shorena]

You missed the important metric IMHO, at least for the last few days.

Someone did mention this on IRC if I recall correctly. It seems like another attempted attack on the network?

I dont have details either, just saw it on twitter earlier. IRC? #bitcoin? (answer per PM is prefered to not derail the thread with it).

[Amph]

well thiking that bitcoin will remain forever at 3 tx per sec, it's like saying that bitcoin is doomed, that tx need to increase at all cost, if you want this thing to be adopted

i'm not counting fake tx obviously, but genuine tx increase, due to an increase in user base, and not because someone is having fun at delay the network...

[franky1]

But some big pools still don't accept any Tx's. We should do something about these Chinese pools. Otherwise delayed payments are not healthy for usable Bitcoin economy. I want to use my coins in marketplaces without any delay.

ive notices AntPool doing alot of blocks of 0.2mb and 0.7mb on regular occassions..        but they are in iceland.
do they get included in your "lets do something" or are you just blaming the chinese

[Quantus]

You won't see higher tx/s without higher fees.

[Meuh6879]

You won't see higher tx/s without higher fees.

well, actually ... "free rate limiter" hits all walls of the bitcoin core client.
really a lot of "users" want to emit free on Bitcoin.

and when the time come, fees will erase noise on Bitcoin network.

trusted network.
balanced network.
serious network.

like the robinhood tax never applied to the financial sector... http://robinhoodtax.org.uk/

[countryfree]

Well, 4 transactions per second is still much too less, if Bitcoin should enter the mainstream one time.

240 transations per minute
14400 transations per hour
345600 transactions per day (!)  

Exactly. There's nothing to be excited about. If BTC wants to be a world currency, it needs to handle way more than that. More than that, for the safety of the network, you'd want it to have some kind of safety margin. BTC's running close to its limits. I don't like it when my computer runs at 100% CPU. It means I need to upgrade.

[lumeire]

I'm not to happy getting closer to the limit but it's good we are gaining popularity.

True, we need immediate action on this block size issue. Otherwise we'll catch a halt. What's the consensus on this again?

[elite3000]

Now let's see if this is just temporary or if it will hold in the future.

And if it holds, what will be the number of transactions in the future peak times

[harrymmmm]

I'm not to happy getting closer to the limit but it's good we are gaining popularity.

True, we need immediate action on this block size issue. Otherwise we'll catch a halt. What's the consensus on this again?

1) it's not as urgent as you make it sound. There's no 'halt', just a fee auction and stuck transactions for those who don't pay enough fees and don't know how to fix.
2) you could rationally argue that something should have been done sooner, but right now the choice is fairly clear:
2a) an unsafe, rushed hard fork to 2MB block size limit (Classic)
or
2b) a safe, segwit update which achieves almost the same transaction rate increase in almost the same time frame.
(2b) also offers an end to transaction malleability and numerous other benefits.

The choice is clear imho.