Bitcoin Forum
May 23, 2019, 06:37:17 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Mempool is now up to 25.5 MB with 22,200 transactions waiting.  (Read 7807 times)
VeritasSapere
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 546
Merit: 500



View Profile
February 29, 2016, 05:37:47 PM
 #41

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.
It is not about who has the best developers. It should be about who has the best client. Bitcoin Unlimited for instance has all of the latest features that Core 0.12 has plus extra features like Xthin which decreases block propogation times by a factor of fifteen at least.

Therefore you could argue that Bitcoin Unlimited 0.12 is better then Bitcoin Core 0.12, since it is open source software after all, we can take all of the improvements Core has done and just simply increase the blocksize limit, it is only a few lines of code after all, to change this single parameter.

Just because arguable Core has the best developers it does not mean they get to dictate to everyone what the blocksize limit should be. It can even be argued that a group of technocrats with deep technical backgrounds do not actually have the expertise to decide on the economic policy of Bitcoin, a field which is far removed from their technical expertise.
1558636637
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558636637

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558636637
Reply with quote  #2

1558636637
Report to moderator
1558636637
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558636637

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558636637
Reply with quote  #2

1558636637
Report to moderator
GET 25 FREE SPINS AT REGISTRATION
GET 100% BONUS ON FIRST DEPOSIT
PLAY NOW
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1558636637
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558636637

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558636637
Reply with quote  #2

1558636637
Report to moderator
1558636637
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558636637

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558636637
Reply with quote  #2

1558636637
Report to moderator
coinzat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 250


Young but I'm not that bold


View Profile
February 29, 2016, 05:51:37 PM
 #42

It is clear that most of these unconfirmed transactions are a part of a ddos attack on the network from some people who support block size increasing. but what I do not understand why there are some empty blocks although the network need them like this
I hope that this delays will end today
Lauda
GrumpyKitty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2226
Merit: 2027


Red Trust Queen™️


View Profile WWW
February 29, 2016, 05:55:21 PM
 #43

... and just simply increase the blocksize limit, it is only a few lines of code after all, to change this single parameter.
You keep saying that but it is not true. BIP109 (Classic) has more than 500 lines of code.

It is clear that most of these unconfirmed transactions are a part of a ddos attack on the network from some people who support block size increasing.
Correct. You can see this if you analyze the fees.

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

███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
▀█████████████████████████▀
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644
Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
February 29, 2016, 06:00:30 PM
 #44

It is not about who has the best developers. It should be about who has the best client. Bitcoin Unlimited for instance has all of the latest features that Core 0.12 has plus extra features like Xthin which decreases block propogation times by a factor of fifteen at least.

Therefore you could argue that Bitcoin Unlimited 0.12 is better then Bitcoin Core 0.12, since it is open source software after all, we can take all of the improvements Core has done and just simply increase the blocksize limit, it is only a few lines of code after all, to change this single parameter.

Just because arguable Core has the best developers it does not mean they get to dictate to everyone what the blocksize limit should be. It can even be argued that a group of technocrats with deep technical backgrounds do not actually have the expertise to decide on the economic policy of Bitcoin, a field which is far removed from their technical expertise.

No one is in the business of setting Bitcoin economic policy.

Developers are concerned with security parameters, nothing else.


"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
VeritasSapere
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 546
Merit: 500



View Profile
February 29, 2016, 06:01:02 PM
 #45

... and just simply increase the blocksize limit, it is only a few lines of code after all, to change this single parameter.
You keep saying that but it is not true. BIP109 (Classic) has more than 500 lines of code.

It is clear that most of these unconfirmed transactions are a part of a ddos attack on the network from some people who support block size increasing.
Correct. You can see this if you analyze the fees.
To change the blocksize itself is only a few lines of Code, Classic includes more mechanisms, like the grace period and miner threshold.

If you ask me I would rather see the blocksize increased compared to having any developer dream team on board. As long as the blocksize is increased Bitcoin will do just fine without any extensive changes.
VeritasSapere
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 546
Merit: 500



View Profile
February 29, 2016, 06:02:26 PM
 #46

It is not about who has the best developers. It should be about who has the best client. Bitcoin Unlimited for instance has all of the latest features that Core 0.12 has plus extra features like Xthin which decreases block propogation times by a factor of fifteen at least.

Therefore you could argue that Bitcoin Unlimited 0.12 is better then Bitcoin Core 0.12, since it is open source software after all, we can take all of the improvements Core has done and just simply increase the blocksize limit, it is only a few lines of code after all, to change this single parameter.

Just because arguable Core has the best developers it does not mean they get to dictate to everyone what the blocksize limit should be. It can even be argued that a group of technocrats with deep technical backgrounds do not actually have the expertise to decide on the economic policy of Bitcoin, a field which is far removed from their technical expertise.
No one is in the business of setting Bitcoin economic policy.

Developers are concerned with security parameters, nothing else.
You are fooling yourself if you think that this debate of a "fee market" vs a "free market" does not relate back to economics. Most people here at least do know that the blocksize limit is a economic policy tool when used in this way.

brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644
Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
February 29, 2016, 06:05:29 PM
 #47

It is not about who has the best developers. It should be about who has the best client. Bitcoin Unlimited for instance has all of the latest features that Core 0.12 has plus extra features like Xthin which decreases block propogation times by a factor of fifteen at least.

Therefore you could argue that Bitcoin Unlimited 0.12 is better then Bitcoin Core 0.12, since it is open source software after all, we can take all of the improvements Core has done and just simply increase the blocksize limit, it is only a few lines of code after all, to change this single parameter.

Just because arguable Core has the best developers it does not mean they get to dictate to everyone what the blocksize limit should be. It can even be argued that a group of technocrats with deep technical backgrounds do not actually have the expertise to decide on the economic policy of Bitcoin, a field which is far removed from their technical expertise.
No one is in the business of setting Bitcoin economic policy.

Developers are concerned with security parameters, nothing else.
You are fooling yourself if you think that this debate of a "fee market" vs a "free market" does not relate back to economics. Most people here at least do know that the blocksize limit is a economic policy tool when used in this way.


No, this is a strawman you have created. The block size limit is a technical, security measure.

The fee market is a consequence, not a decision.

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
VeritasSapere
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 546
Merit: 500



View Profile
February 29, 2016, 06:09:40 PM
 #48

It is not about who has the best developers. It should be about who has the best client. Bitcoin Unlimited for instance has all of the latest features that Core 0.12 has plus extra features like Xthin which decreases block propogation times by a factor of fifteen at least.

Therefore you could argue that Bitcoin Unlimited 0.12 is better then Bitcoin Core 0.12, since it is open source software after all, we can take all of the improvements Core has done and just simply increase the blocksize limit, it is only a few lines of code after all, to change this single parameter.

Just because arguable Core has the best developers it does not mean they get to dictate to everyone what the blocksize limit should be. It can even be argued that a group of technocrats with deep technical backgrounds do not actually have the expertise to decide on the economic policy of Bitcoin, a field which is far removed from their technical expertise.
No one is in the business of setting Bitcoin economic policy.

Developers are concerned with security parameters, nothing else.
You are fooling yourself if you think that this debate of a "fee market" vs a "free market" does not relate back to economics. Most people here at least do know that the blocksize limit is a economic policy tool when used in this way.

No, this is a strawman you have created. The block size limit is a technical, security measure.

The fee market is a consequence, not a decision.
The fee market is a consequence of a decision. If we decided to increase the blocksize instead we would have a free market for blockspace right now instead of this "fee market".
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644
Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
February 29, 2016, 06:13:10 PM
 #49

It is not about who has the best developers. It should be about who has the best client. Bitcoin Unlimited for instance has all of the latest features that Core 0.12 has plus extra features like Xthin which decreases block propogation times by a factor of fifteen at least.

Therefore you could argue that Bitcoin Unlimited 0.12 is better then Bitcoin Core 0.12, since it is open source software after all, we can take all of the improvements Core has done and just simply increase the blocksize limit, it is only a few lines of code after all, to change this single parameter.

Just because arguable Core has the best developers it does not mean they get to dictate to everyone what the blocksize limit should be. It can even be argued that a group of technocrats with deep technical backgrounds do not actually have the expertise to decide on the economic policy of Bitcoin, a field which is far removed from their technical expertise.
No one is in the business of setting Bitcoin economic policy.

Developers are concerned with security parameters, nothing else.
You are fooling yourself if you think that this debate of a "fee market" vs a "free market" does not relate back to economics. Most people here at least do know that the blocksize limit is a economic policy tool when used in this way.

No, this is a strawman you have created. The block size limit is a technical, security measure.

The fee market is a consequence, not a decision.
The fee market is a consequence of a decision. If we decided to increase the blocksize instead we would have a free market for blockspace right now instead of this "fee market".

The decision relates to the technical security of the network. The resulting consequences are what they are but they do not allow you to make a strawman of the decision and push the narrative that it is economically rationalized when it is not.

I don't expect you to understand or recognize this though.

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
johnyj
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848
Merit: 1000


Beyond Imagination


View Profile
February 29, 2016, 06:35:21 PM
 #50


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

Nothing prevent competent devs from submitting codes to Classic, vise versa. And competent devs should follow Satoshi's vision, not Blockstreams, Adam Back has proved that he is very poor in making economic related decisions, so his vision that side chain and LN will get wide adoption is a joke.

Just look at 21inc's Lightning Network, if there is any strong market demand for this kind of functionality, they will be sold out immediately. But the reality is that no one cares about this so called micro payment channel

chopstick
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1003
Merit: 1000


View Profile
February 29, 2016, 06:40:01 PM
 #51


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

Nothing prevent competent devs from submitting codes to Classic, vise versa. And competent devs should follow the Satoshi's vision, not Blockstreams, Adam Back has proved that he is very poor in making economic related decisions, so his vision that side chain and LN will get wide adoption is a joke

Yeah, no kidding. And he is purposely limiting the blocksize and thus artificially restricting the # of transactions the blockchain can handle in his mad dash to make this a reality.
watashi-kokoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 256



View Profile
February 29, 2016, 06:57:35 PM
 #52

The sky has fallen! An eternal backlog of
11426 transactions
22.37 MB

has formed
Time to flush it down the drain. Grin
Sark
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140
Merit: 100


View Profile
February 29, 2016, 06:57:41 PM
 #53

Back log for Total fees:
5.8035 XBT

That doesn't look like spam.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644
Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
February 29, 2016, 07:11:01 PM
 #54


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

Nothing prevent competent devs from submitting codes to Classic, vise versa. And competent devs should follow Satoshi's vision, not Blockstreams, Adam Back has proved that he is very poor in making economic related decisions, so his vision that side chain and LN will get wide adoption is a joke.

Just look at 21inc's Lightning Network, if there is any strong market demand for this kind of functionality, they will be sold out immediately. But the reality is that no one cares about this so called micro payment channel

Did you get bought off by the trolls?

You used to make sense.

21inc doesn't have a lightning network.

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644
Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
February 29, 2016, 07:12:33 PM
Merited by chimk (4)
 #55


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

Nothing prevent competent devs from submitting codes to Classic, vise versa. And competent devs should follow the Satoshi's vision, not Blockstreams, Adam Back has proved that he is very poor in making economic related decisions, so his vision that side chain and LN will get wide adoption is a joke

Yeah, no kidding. And he is purposely limiting the blocksize and thus artificially restricting the # of transactions the blockchain can handle in his mad dash to make this a reality.

The network of peers is currently limiting the blocksize.

You wanted a p2p consensus network, deal with it. Status quo until everyone agrees.

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
watashi-kokoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 256



View Profile
February 29, 2016, 07:21:31 PM
 #56

Did you get bought off by the trolls?

You used to make sense.

21inc doesn't have a lightning network.

The pink logo guy is shill as far I remember

bargainbin
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 100



View Profile
February 29, 2016, 07:23:50 PM
 #57


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

Nothing prevent competent devs from submitting codes to Classic, vise versa. And competent devs should follow the Satoshi's vision, not Blockstreams, Adam Back has proved that he is very poor in making economic related decisions, so his vision that side chain and LN will get wide adoption is a joke

Yeah, no kidding. And he is purposely limiting the blocksize and thus artificially restricting the # of transactions the blockchain can handle in his mad dash to make this a reality.

The network of peers is currently limiting the blocksize.

You wanted a p2p consensus network, deal with it. Status quo until everyone agrees.

A network of peers decides if my transaction is worth processing.
The very thing that was missing from legacy finance!
Cheesy
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644
Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
February 29, 2016, 07:25:55 PM
 #58


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

Nothing prevent competent devs from submitting codes to Classic, vise versa. And competent devs should follow the Satoshi's vision, not Blockstreams, Adam Back has proved that he is very poor in making economic related decisions, so his vision that side chain and LN will get wide adoption is a joke

Yeah, no kidding. And he is purposely limiting the blocksize and thus artificially restricting the # of transactions the blockchain can handle in his mad dash to make this a reality.

The network of peers is currently limiting the blocksize.

You wanted a p2p consensus network, deal with it. Status quo until everyone agrees.

A network of peers decides if my transaction is worth processing.
The very thing that was missing from legacy finance!
Cheesy

Exactly, you tell your handlers your shitty spam is not welcomed. Thank you very much

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
bargainbin
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 100



View Profile
February 29, 2016, 07:32:32 PM
 #59


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

Nothing prevent competent devs from submitting codes to Classic, vise versa. And competent devs should follow the Satoshi's vision, not Blockstreams, Adam Back has proved that he is very poor in making economic related decisions, so his vision that side chain and LN will get wide adoption is a joke

Yeah, no kidding. And he is purposely limiting the blocksize and thus artificially restricting the # of transactions the blockchain can handle in his mad dash to make this a reality.

The network of peers is currently limiting the blocksize.

You wanted a p2p consensus network, deal with it. Status quo until everyone agrees.

A network of peers decides if my transaction is worth processing.
The very thing that was missing from legacy finance!
Cheesy

Exactly, you tell your handlers your shitty spam is not welcomed. Thank you very much

They're trying to get in touch with you, BTW. Wondering where to send your bonus for trying to gimp Bitcoin.
Wishing you luck & hoping you don't get discouraged Smiley
sgbett
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1792
Merit: 1045



View Profile
February 29, 2016, 08:02:14 PM
 #60

The fee market is a consequence, not a decision.

A consequence of inaction. Intentionally not doing what was supposed to be done.

I will continue to 'appeal to my authority' you will continue to appeal to yours.

It boils down to whether you trust Satoshi, or Back.

"A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution" - Satoshi Nakamoto
*my posts are not investment advice*
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 »  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!