Mempool is now up to 25.5 MB with 22,200 transactions waiting.

[VeritasSapere]

It's a spam attack. My mempool just hit 80k transactions but the smart fee hasn't increased at all. Fee-paying transactions are completely unaffected, and the spam transactions will never confirm, regardless of block size. Anyone dragging the block size debate squabble into it doesn't know what they're talking about.

If this is a spam attack then an increased blocksize would make it less effective. Miners would be able to clear the mempool faster, making the spammers pay fees until they have enough of wasting their money.

[1715090705]

1715090705

[1715090705]

1715090705

[1715090705]

1715090705

[1715090705]

1715090705

[Amph]

here the roadmap

https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/bitcoin-roundtable-consensus-266d475a61ff#.i6nl16i1k

This hard-fork is expected to include features which are currently being discussed within technical communities, including an increase in the non-witness data to be around 2 MB, with the total size no more than 4 MB, and will only be adopted with broad support across the entire Bitcoin community.

[Bepesand]

1mb can not last forever everyone know this, it is time to upgrade, and bring some room to the block limit, it will be done in june this year so no worry about it

i think poeple can wait 4 months, because they waited years for this fix so...

Do you mean the block increase with the SegWit? I think The 2MB increase will be around July 2017.

[watashi-kokoto]

If this is a spam attack then an increased blocksize would make it less effective. Miners would be able to clear the mempool faster, making the spammers pay fees until they have enough of wasting their money.

Wrong. Slow connection users would have hard time catching up, and the dust would have to be archived forever.

[VeritasSapere]

1mb can not last forever everyone know this, it is time tp upgrade, and bring some room to the block limit, it will be done in june this year so no worry about it

i think poeple can wait 4 months, because they waited years for this fix so...

Only now are we truly reaching capacity. Four months is to long, it will be to late by that time with a change that does to little. I presume you are talking about SegWit to be released in June, since Core is unlikely to ever increase the blocksize, considering that they where even unable to promise and guarantee a blocksize increase by 2017/2018 in the recent satoshi round table meetings, which is why F2Pool dropped its support.

Core wants to fundamentally change the economic policy of Bitcoin, diverging from the original design and plan from Satoshi, this should be clear to everyone by now. We are now approaching the economic change event that Jeff Garzick warned us about.

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011973.html

i'm not sure but i've read somewhere, that the core team want to increase the capacity besides the segwit thing, they first will do the segwit upgrade then they will increase the capacity to 2mb, with an effective 4mb as a new limit or slightly below it

If you look closer to the events of the recent Satoshi roundtable you will realize that this is not necessarily the case. Blockstream was unable to sign on to the change because they do not have complete consensus within their company for a blocksize increase, which was also a stated prerequisite by Core that they required this consensus as defined by them. Which is why Adam Back, CEO of blockstream changed his signature from blockstream CEO to "individual". This offended F2Pool, which is why they withdrew their support from Core.

Core will continue to stall since that is all they have to do in order to bring about their "fee market" as opposed to a free market for blockspace which is what I favor. It should be as clear as day now that there are radically opposing visions for the future of Bitcoin, Core is now succeeding in pushing their vision on to Bitcoin, which represents a radical departure from the economic policy of Bitcoins past, this is the more radical and extreme change that is taking place now because Core will not increase the blocksize.

https://medium.com/@jgarzik/bitcoin-is-being-hot-wired-for-settlement-a5beb1df223a#.lp9o3dr65

[Kprawn]

Looks like some idiots want to spam with too little fees, to make it look like it is congested. Nothing out of the ordinary here, we are getting used to these false congestion stages. The people who paid

the recommended fees, are still getting quick tx confirmations. I would not mind if they did increase the block size, then people can spam all they want and nobody will even notice it and scream "Wolf"

every time this happens.  

[VeritasSapere]

I see just 9286 tx and 15.05 MB

Maybe you're looking in the wrong place then.

I do not know where you are getting your information from but this is a more reliable metric:

https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions

[Herbert2020]

at this point i just hope increasing block size to 2 MB fixed the problem for long enough time.

and we don't see the same long debate about increasing 2 MB to 4 MB and so on till the end of time.

[Blind Legs Parker]

https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions

It's 30k now. And counting. This is getting serious. Well I mean, if the guys on top think that it indeed is serious, then they'll surely work towards a consensus with much more motivation than what we've seen until now.
It's sad but I think that consensus won't be reached until things get really dangerous. And it's still only the beginning now.

[VeritasSapere]

at this point i just hope increasing block size to 2 MB fixed the problem for long enough time.

and we don't see the same long debate about increasing 2 MB to 4 MB and so on till the end of time.

The Bitcoin Classic roadmap includes an adaptive blocksize, which will be implemented after a bump up to two megabytes. That is if the community chooses to move away from Core, which I think we should do. In order to preserve the original vision of Bitcoin by Satoshi.

https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/documentation/blob/master/roadmap/roadmap2016.md

[Denker]

Looks like another spam attack to me.
Pay the regular fee and you're fine.

[johnyj]

Currently average fee for a fast confirmation rose by 50% comparing with yesterday

https://bitcoinfees.21.co/

[ShrykeZ]

Huge amounts of network traffic, most likely another spam attack, this is the highest I have seen at a queue of almost 30MB.

[johnyj]

Huge amounts of network traffic, most likely another spam attack, this is the highest I have seen at a queue of almost 30MB.

Maybe not, today is salary day, most of the retail level transactions happen this week

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

Huge amounts of network traffic, most likely another spam attack, this is the highest I have seen at a queue of almost 30MB.

This was predicted years ago and could have been completely prevented by implementing BIP 101 last year. Run Classic/BIP 109 now so that we only have to endure this for 1 month. So, Sooner Bitcoin will be back to normal.

How the frack would BIP 101 help with this?

[Lauda]

Currently average fee for a fast confirmation rose by 50% comparing with yesterday

https://bitcoinfees.21.co/

If you take a closer look most of the unconfirmed transactions included a very low fee, ergo (seems like an) attack, ergo trying to manipulate and create a sense of urgency. Nothing special here, users that include a proper fee should be unaffected.

[Blazed]

Huge amounts of network traffic, most likely another spam attack, this is the highest I have seen at a queue of almost 30MB.

This was predicted years ago and could have been completely prevented by implementing BIP 101 last year. Run Classic/BIP 109 now so that we only have to endure this for 1 month. So, Sooner Bitcoin will be back to normal.

How the frack would BIP 101 help with this?

We all want larger blocks, but we want it done with competent devs...so not the Classic crew.

[VeritasSapere]

Huge amounts of network traffic, most likely another spam attack, this is the highest I have seen at a queue of almost 30MB.

This was predicted years ago and could have been completely prevented by implementing BIP 101 last year. Run Classic/BIP 109 now so that we only have to endure this for 1 month. So, Sooner Bitcoin will be back to normal.

How the frack would BIP 101 help with this?

An increased blocksize would help keep the fees low and prevent any confirmation delays. Bitcoin Classic/BIP 109 is indeed the best solution to this problem today.

[brg444]

Good thing we have the spam limit in place 

[Blazed]

Huge amounts of network traffic, most likely another spam attack, this is the highest I have seen at a queue of almost 30MB.

This was predicted years ago and could have been completely prevented by implementing BIP 101 last year. Run Classic/BIP 109 now so that we only have to endure this for 1 month. So, Sooner Bitcoin will be back to normal.

How the frack would BIP 101 help with this?

An increased blocksize would help keep the fees low and prevent any confirmation delays. Bitcoin Classic/BIP 109 is indeed the best solution to this problem now.

They lack enough devs to get it done. Gavin said he will not be coding much if at all. Tommim is too stoned... I saw that interview from the roundtable with Roger Ver and his answer was we think the other coders will join us if we fork... Does not instill much confidence for me.