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

[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?

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.

[1715280323]

1715280323

[coinzat]

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]

... 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.

[brg444]

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.

[VeritasSapere]

... 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]

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]

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.

[VeritasSapere]

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]

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.

[johnyj]

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]

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]

The sky has fallen! An eternal backlog of
11426 transactions
22.37 MB
has formed
Time to flush it down the drain.

[Sark]

Back log for Total fees:
5.8035 XBT

That doesn't look like spam.

[brg444]

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.

[brg444]

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.

[watashi-kokoto]

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]

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!

[brg444]

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!

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

[bargainbin]

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!

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

[sgbett]

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.