why transactions are taking too long ?

[exbit]

Something has gone wrong in our community. Bitcoin is sick.
There's an unusually high number of unconfirmed transaction.
I never had experience with less than "high priority".
But I have three days in a row can not send money from BlockChain.

[shorena]

[ size=11pt]Something has gone wrong in our community. Bitcoin is sick.
There's an unusually high number of unconfirmed transaction.
I never had experience with less than "high priority".
But I have three days in a row can not send money from BlockChain.[/size]

Show us your transaction and we can tell you the fee you paid was too low.

[Betwrong]

I have been sending my transactions with 4x the minimal fee for a while and they seem to be confirming kinda faster.
What is your usual fee guys that you like to use? Do you use the high to medium fees or lower?

I always use very low fees, less than a medium anyway, and the interesting part is my transactions always go pretty fast: from 5 mins to 30 mins max, but most of them take less than 10 mins. So it really surprises me when I see people who pay high fees complain about slow transactions.

[--Encrypted--]

looks like people are paying a higher fee now. this is good (IMO).
many third party services are still paying a fixed fee of .0001 or .0002 for every transaction though. and their tx usually have multiple inputs.

[Lauda]

According to me SegWit is the ultimate conclusion to solve this kind of problems.

Neither Segwit nor a 2 MB block size limit (ignore the false propaganda by the shills) are any kind of solution to this problem. What they essentially do, when you look at it from this perspective, is delay the problem a bit. Currently the only known way to avoid this and have instant transactions would be the Lightning Network (still in development).

Bitcoin is sick.

Bitcoin is not organic, therefore it can't get sick.

There's an unusually high number of unconfirmed transaction.

This is the result of an attack on the network.

many third party services are still paying a fixed fee of .0001 or .0002 for every transaction though. and their tx usually have multiple inputs.

[Alley]

Miners still arnt switching to classic.  So they either don't care that the blocks are full or don't trust classic.

[Lauda]

Miners still arnt switching to classic.  

There isn't a single valid reason to switch to Classic. Don't start this debate in yet another thread please.

So they either don't care that the blocks are full or don't trust classic.

Classic doesn't solve the problem that was caused by the attack. Please read the whole topic before posting.

[Alley]

Miners still arnt switching to classic.  

There isn't a single valid reason to switch to Classic. Don't start this debate in yet another thread please.

So they either don't care that the blocks are full or don't trust classic.

Classic doesn't solve the problem that was caused by the attack. Please read the whole topic before posting.

I'll read and post whatever I want.  Thanks.

[Yakamoto]

Miners still arnt switching to classic.  So they either don't care that the blocks are full or don't trust classic.

I think a majority of miners just want to keep going with the flow and not make any drastic changes yet, if there are major issues related to the block size being too small I think there would be more of a push for miners to change to the classic chain. In the meantime, however, there is no need for them to change, as they are still making enough money.

[SuperCoinGuy]

What is going on guys is there a big backlog of transactions again? I have had some TX delayed even though the fees were reasonable.

[Ubertroco]

They may try to fix this problem on btc but it will keep happening. its a limitation in itself.

[David Rabahy]

Can I configure my full node to combat spamming?  For example, configure my firewall to prohibit known bad IPs?  Configure my Bitcoin application to not forward known bad Bitcoin addresses?

You can do whatever you want.

As a non-mining full node operator, pay me and I will forward your transactions.  Don't pay me and I won't.

No.

How many no-fee transactions are waiting typically? 

You should assume that the number of TX's at a fee of 0 are infinite.

Would a 1MB block clear them pretty well?

No.

Cool; you've convinced me; I might be thick but I am not infinitely so.  I am switching from Classic to Core.  Thank you for your patience.  The easiest/best/only? way to fight spam is by making it expensive for them.  So far the only answer appears to be increasing fees.  Attempting to increase adoption with unrealistic low/zero fees is misleading.

One day we will need to increase the block size in order to accommodate non-spam traffic; we just aren't there yet.  How much non-spam traffic is flowing through these days?

[VeritasSapere]

I think you are mistaken, the problem is that there is not enough network capacity. Increasing the networks capacity solves the problem of congestion now. You need to think about this more long term, now is not the time to restrict the throughput of the network. If we have twice the network throughput it will be twice as expensive with the same fees to attack the network. This property increases as we increase the blocksize. Bitcoin will not be able to compete with the alternative cryptocurrencies when they can just increase the blocksize, this was always the intention with the original design of Bitcoin as well. In the long term we might have more expensive fees but I think that should be up to the free market to decide, not enforced through an economic policy tool like the blocksize limit. With an increased blocksize over the long term it will be much more expensive to attack the network in this way. Making Bitcoin more unreliable and expensive will simply just lead to its obsoletion, we can already see how Ethereum is rising in response to this crisis. Most altcoins already have a TPS in the hundreds, the 3-7 TPS of Bitcoin is just a bad joke there is no chance that Bitcoin will remain the dominant cryptocurrency if that remains the case.

[David Rabahy]

Spammers; bring it until you are broke; you are literally helping improve Bitcoin.

Legit users; quit your whining; pay reasonable fees during these spam attacks.

Developers; continue to help legit users pay reasonable fees.  Be on the lookout for the time when a bigger block size is needed to move legit traffic at reasonable fees.

Governance; i.e. the community at-large, this debate had to take as long as it did due to a variety of reasons (and I sincerely doubt we've heard the last of it).  Do not lose heart.  Bitcoin is a keeper technology.  Embrace reasonable fees; the early days of low/zero fees are behind us now; remember them like we remember floppy diskettes, etc.

[VeritasSapere]

I hope you realize what it means in terms of governance to run Core. I am strongly opposed to their conception of Bitcoin governance regardless of the blocksize issue.

[David Rabahy]

I think you are mistaken, the problem is that there is not enough network capacity. Increasing the networks capacity solves the problem of congestion now. You need to think about this more long term, now is not the time to restrict the throughput of the network. If we have twice the network throughput it will be twice as expensive with the same fees to attack the network. This property increases as we increase the blocksize. Bitcoin will not be able to compete with the alternative cryptocurrencies when they can just increase the blocksize, this was always the intention with the original design of Bitcoin as well. In the long term we might have more expensive fees but I think that should be up to the free market to decide, not enforced through an economic policy tool like the blocksize limit. With an increased blocksize over the long term it will be much more expensive to attack the network in this way. Making Bitcoin more unreliable and expensive will simply just lead to its obsoletion, we can already see how Ethereum is rising in response to this crisis. Most altcoins already have a TPS in the hundreds, the 3-7 TPS of Bitcoin is just a bad joke there is no chance that Bitcoin will remain the dominant cryptocurrency if that remains the case.

Unfortunately even a 32MB blocksize (or even larger) can't be the answer.  Spammers could just load 'em up with crap low/zero fee transactions.

How much legit traffic is there right now?

[VeritasSapere]

I think you are mistaken, the problem is that there is not enough network capacity. Increasing the networks capacity solves the problem of congestion now. You need to think about this more long term, now is not the time to restrict the throughput of the network. If we have twice the network throughput it will be twice as expensive with the same fees to attack the network. This property increases as we increase the blocksize. Bitcoin will not be able to compete with the alternative cryptocurrencies when they can just increase the blocksize, this was always the intention with the original design of Bitcoin as well. In the long term we might have more expensive fees but I think that should be up to the free market to decide, not enforced through an economic policy tool like the blocksize limit. With an increased blocksize over the long term it will be much more expensive to attack the network in this way. Making Bitcoin more unreliable and expensive will simply just lead to its obsoletion, we can already see how Ethereum is rising in response to this crisis. Most altcoins already have a TPS in the hundreds, the 3-7 TPS of Bitcoin is just a bad joke there is no chance that Bitcoin will remain the dominant cryptocurrency if that remains the case.

Unfortunately even a 32MB blocksize (or even larger) can't be the answer.  Spammers could just load 'em up with crap low/zero fee transactions.

How much legit traffic is there right now?

In that case miners could put the spam into blocks making them pay for it, zero fee transactions will just get dropped. While also avoiding any confirmation dellays in the proccess. In the example that you mention, with a standard low transaction fee of 0.0001. It would cost approximately 6.4 Bitcoins per block to attack the network. At the current Bitcoin price it would cost approximately four hundred thousand dollars per day to attack the Bitcoin network with a thirty megabyte blocksize limit. I would argue that this is a much better defense against a spam attack compared to restricting the blocksize, while very importantly not sacrificing the utility of Bitcoin.

Bitcoin is a permisionless network, I do not think there even is such a thing as spam unless you can prove the malicious intentions of the spammers, which is sometimes the case. I do think that what we are seeing now is the network simply reaching capacity, which is why its capacity must be increased or Bitcoin risks being out competed and obsolesced by alternative cryptocurrencies and fiat.

[VeritasSapere]

Everyone please inform your self.

http://konradsgraf.com/blog1/tag/block-size-debate
https://medium.com/@riprowan/the-entire-debate-transcends-block-sizes-and-gets-to-the-fundamental-principles-of-bitcoin-as-c7f7bc1a493#.e6tlubrv7
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011973.html
https://medium.com/@jgarzik/bitcoin-is-being-hot-wired-for-settlement-a5beb1df223a#.7ek47hakx

[David Rabahy]

I hope you realize what it means in terms of governance to run Core. I am strongly opposed to their conception of Bitcoin governance regardless of the blocksize issue.

I too am terribly uneasy about such a small number of people holding the keys; they are vulnerable to coercion and/or simple misguidance.  I would be ok with the Classic guys taking the keys but they are vulnerable to the same things.  I don't have an answer.  Polarizing on the blocksize is not healthy.  Depolarizing is going to be the way forward for sure.  Would someone please point me at a site that reveals the current and historic legit traffic?

[David Rabahy]

I think you are mistaken, the problem is that there is not enough network capacity. Increasing the networks capacity solves the problem of congestion now. You need to think about this more long term, now is not the time to restrict the throughput of the network. If we have twice the network throughput it will be twice as expensive with the same fees to attack the network. This property increases as we increase the blocksize. Bitcoin will not be able to compete with the alternative cryptocurrencies when they can just increase the blocksize, this was always the intention with the original design of Bitcoin as well. In the long term we might have more expensive fees but I think that should be up to the free market to decide, not enforced through an economic policy tool like the blocksize limit. With an increased blocksize over the long term it will be much more expensive to attack the network in this way. Making Bitcoin more unreliable and expensive will simply just lead to its obsoletion, we can already see how Ethereum is rising in response to this crisis. Most altcoins already have a TPS in the hundreds, the 3-7 TPS of Bitcoin is just a bad joke there is no chance that Bitcoin will remain the dominant cryptocurrency if that remains the case.

Unfortunately even a 32MB blocksize (or even larger) can't be the answer.  Spammers could just load 'em up with crap low/zero fee transactions.

How much legit traffic is there right now?

In that case miners could put the spam into blocks making them pay for it, zero fee transactions will just get dropped. While also avoiding any confirmation dellays in the proccess. In the example that you mention, with a standard low transaction fee of 0.0001. It would cost approximately 6.4 Bitcoins per block to attack the network. At the current Bitcoin price it would cost approximately four hundred thousand dollars per day to attack the Bitcoin network with a thirty megabyte blocksize limit. I would argue that this is a much better defense against a spam attack compared to restricting the blocksize, while very importantly not sacrificing the utility of Bitcoin.

Bitcoin is a permisionless network, I do not think there even is such a thing as spam unless you can prove the malicious intentions of the spammers, which is sometimes the case. I do think that what we are seeing now is the network simply reaching capacity, which is why its capacity must be increased or Bitcoin risks being out competed and obsolesced by alternative cryptocurrencies and fiat.

Miners have a stake in the health of Bitcoin; it makes no sense for them to undermine it.

Hmm, I too thought about how large blocks let the spammers go broke faster *but* the larger blocksize also encourages lower fees.  Has anyone done the math (or simulation) to see how the two forces play out?