why transactions are taking too long ?

[erikalui]

My twi transactions got confirmed after 24 hours and when I transferred them to another account via xapo, it took less than an hour. I don't know if there's an issue only with blockchain or with all wallets but now it seems we need to add a higher fee to get our transactions confirmed soon.

[defcon23]

an interesting article here :  http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-capacity-nightmare-fees-reality/?utm_source=CoinDesk+subscribers&utm_campaign=ac8f007b46-EMAIL_RSS_CAMPAIGNT2&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_74abb9e6ab-ac8f007b46-72116193

[n0ne]

I recently made a transaction before a week but I haven't experience much time to get the confirmations.
I gat my confirmations within 40 minutes. I transferred from my blockchain wallet.

[keepdoing]

Its simple.  Crippled coins don't run as fast as healthy coins.  Bitcoin has had its legs broken by Blockstream/Core.  What did you expect?  I mean seriously.... are you people really that stupid that you can't even figure out something this simple?

[Cuidler]

I've been really frustrated by the slow confirmation times too.  I really hope the devs figure out something soon that will solve this problem.  Hopefully something that will allow fast confirmations times and still be relatively cheap.

They have, at least the core devs. Core has a well working fee estimate for quite some time now. The most recent addition was the option to increase the fee of a unconfirmed transaction (opt-in replace by fee),but its not part of the GUI yet.

The problematic part is the full node internet bandwith is going up significally when transactions get rebroadcasted en masse with such replace by fee feature. And internet bandwith is the last argument why dont increase onchain blocksize, because hard disk space or CPU is not such issue.

[sishendaoye]

I've been really frustrated by the slow confirmation times too.  I really hope the devs figure out something soon that will solve this problem.  Hopefully something that will allow fast confirmations times and still be relatively cheap.

They have, at least the core devs. Core has a well working fee estimate for quite some time now. The most recent addition was the option to increase the fee of a unconfirmed transaction (opt-in replace by fee),but its not part of the GUI yet.

The problematic part is the full node internet bandwith is going up significally when transactions get rebroadcasted en masse with such replace by fee feature. And internet bandwith is the last argument why dont increase onchain blocksize, because hard disk space or CPU is not such issue.

Well yes but just remember the average user don't care about technical terms. They want a fast and reliable  paymetn method.
And this waiting time is juts not gooed.

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

I've been really frustrated by the slow confirmation times too.  I really hope the devs figure out something soon that will solve this problem.  Hopefully something that will allow fast confirmations times and still be relatively cheap.

They have, at least the core devs. Core has a well working fee estimate for quite some time now. The most recent addition was the option to increase the fee of a unconfirmed transaction (opt-in replace by fee),but its not part of the GUI yet.

The problematic part is the full node internet bandwith is going up significally when transactions get rebroadcasted en masse with such replace by fee feature. And internet bandwith is the last argument why dont increase onchain blocksize, because hard disk space or CPU is not such issue.

Well yes but just remember the average user don't care about technical terms. They want a fast and reliable  paymetn method.
And this waiting time is juts not gooed.

The waiting time issue also does not exist. Bitcoin is reliable and fast now.

[ctlaltdefeat]

Since I woke up this morning , I've seen several topics and people complaining about their transactions not getting confirmed ? Is it a coincidence or there is something going on ? Spam attack or something similar ?

its rarely happen,and i just know it s block mistake or connection problem,last day my transaction also delayed almost a day,and its feel like shit. i need that bitcoin,and i get it so long to come to my wallet,this totally rare happen to me.

[Zaun]

I had not happen it but i saw the amount of transactions is stacking up. I really hope the developers will start soon with the blocksize increasement.
Right now it's like we are ignoring a very big problem.

[Lauda]

I had not happen it but i saw the amount of transactions is stacking up.

It was an attack.

Right now it's like we are ignoring a very big problem.

The only thing being ignored is all of the posts, by you.

its rarely happen,and i just know it s block mistake or connection problem,last day my transaction also delayed almost a day,and its feel like shit. i need that bitcoin,and i get it so long to come to my wallet,this totally rare happen to me.

Delays don't happen because of the reasons that you've listed.

[Quickseller]

I've been really frustrated by the slow confirmation times too.  I really hope the devs figure out something soon that will solve this problem.  Hopefully something that will allow fast confirmations times and still be relatively cheap.

They have, at least the core devs. Core has a well working fee estimate for quite some time now. The most recent addition was the option to increase the fee of a unconfirmed transaction (opt-in replace by fee),but its not part of the GUI yet.

That is not a solution. All that does is cause more network traffic (from people rebroadcasting new RBF transactions), making transactions more expensive for everyone, and *maybe* making "stress test"-like "attacks" more expensive. Raising fees is not going to allow more transactions to fit in a single block.

[shorena]

I've been really frustrated by the slow confirmation times too.  I really hope the devs figure out something soon that will solve this problem.  Hopefully something that will allow fast confirmations times and still be relatively cheap.

They have, at least the core devs. Core has a well working fee estimate for quite some time now. The most recent addition was the option to increase the fee of a unconfirmed transaction (opt-in replace by fee),but its not part of the GUI yet.

That is not a solution. All that does is cause more network traffic (from people rebroadcasting new RBF transactions), making transactions more expensive for everyone, and *maybe* making "stress test"-like "attacks" more expensive. Raising fees is not going to allow more transactions to fit in a single block.

Well yes, the underlying question is whether we assume that all "legit" transactions still fit into a 1 MB block or if the network is under attack (again). Judging from the analysis a few people posted, the vast majority of the transactions causing the hold up currently pay a 2 satoshi per byte fee. RBF (when implemented into the GUI) can help to retroactively increase the fee of a "stuck" transaction. It is just a band aid solution, bigger blocks will be needed regardless.

[MyBTT]

don't know about spam attack but there's an unusually high number of unconfirmed transaction right now. lots of them sends 1-10 satoshi per byte as fee. and the number of txes paying high fee are also a bit higher than usual.

maybe just a busy day.

It is definitely not just a busy day, it is a spam attack. People are sending very low amounts of satoshis and are filling up the blocks.

[Quickseller]

I've been really frustrated by the slow confirmation times too.  I really hope the devs figure out something soon that will solve this problem.  Hopefully something that will allow fast confirmations times and still be relatively cheap.

They have, at least the core devs. Core has a well working fee estimate for quite some time now. The most recent addition was the option to increase the fee of a unconfirmed transaction (opt-in replace by fee),but its not part of the GUI yet.

That is not a solution. All that does is cause more network traffic (from people rebroadcasting new RBF transactions), making transactions more expensive for everyone, and *maybe* making "stress test"-like "attacks" more expensive. Raising fees is not going to allow more transactions to fit in a single block.

Well yes, the underlying question is whether we assume that all "legit" transactions still fit into a 1 MB block or if the network is under attack (again). Judging from the analysis a few people posted, the vast majority of the transactions causing the hold up currently pay a 2 satoshi per byte fee. RBF (when implemented into the GUI) can help to retroactively increase the fee of a "stuck" transaction. It is just a band aid solution, bigger blocks will be needed regardless.

I would consider it a deflection when the current backlog of transactions are not "legit" transactions.

The Bitcoin protocol considers any transaction with a valid signature (for that specific transaction), and that only spends outputs that have not yet been spent in a previously confirmed transaction to be "legit" (valid).

The nodes will generally be a little bit more restrictive in that they will often not relay transactions that are "non-standard" (but will rely blocks that contain non-standard transactions) -- e.g.: contain outputs that are all below a certain threshold in size, contain a "high" "k" value signature, double spends another unconfirmed transaction in a node's mempool (this would not fit the definition of 'non-standard'), among other reasons.

When the backlog of transactions will get high (as it was recently), the blockstream core devs, and their fanboys, will claim that transactions when one entity sends BTC to itself that the transaction is not "legit" (and they will assume that the backlog is due to these transactions, yet do not provide proof, or even evidence that the backlog of transactions is due to one or more entities sending a large number of transactions to themselves). However there may be a number of business reasons that a reasonable person may find reasonable that an entity may send a large number of transactions to itself.

[sdp]

Lots of opinion but few facts.   On blockchain info has a chart depicting the number of transactions per day and fees in dolars per day and by dividing you can get an average.   I suppose this does not include those excluded from the block so if you pay the average fee calculated by dividing the vales in the charts. the fee should be enough.

A full node should have enough knowledge to determine what the minimum fee was among the transactions accepted.   Then the software can recommend to the user to pay some value just above that minimum


sdp

[Quickseller]

A full node should have enough knowledge to determine what the minimum fee was among the transactions accepted.   Then the software can recommend to the user to pay some value just above that minimum

There are a couple of problems with this solution:

1) this is not currently written into the software of Bitcoin core. Full nodes (and lightweight clients) do however have software that can estimate the fee required to get a transaction confirmed quickly using some amount of variables.

2) different pools have different policies regarding which transactions to include in the blocks they find and the transaction you are attempting to create may require a higher or lower fee then previous transactions that have been recently confirmed.

3) pools will sometimes include transactions that pay out their miners in the blocks they find and these transactions will not need to pay any TX fee, distorting the average fee paid.

4) if there are more transactions every 10 minutes then the network can handle then the above estimate will be inaccurate because the fee required to get a TX confirmed will be increasing

[clickerz]

A full node should have enough knowledge to determine what the minimum fee was among the transactions accepted.   Then the software can recommend to the user to pay some value just above that minimum

There are a couple of problems with this solution:

1) this is not currently written into the software of Bitcoin core. Full nodes (and lightweight clients) do however have software that can estimate the fee required to get a transaction confirmed quickly using some amount of variables.

2) different pools have different policies regarding which transactions to include in the blocks they find and the transaction you are attempting to create may require a higher or lower fee then previous transactions that have been recently confirmed.

3) pools will sometimes include transactions that pay out their miners in the blocks they find and these transactions will not need to pay any TX fee, distorting the average fee paid.

4) if there are more transactions every 10 minutes then the network can handle then the above estimate will be inaccurate because the fee required to get a TX confirmed will be increasing

Thank you for posting this explanation. Delayed happens from time to time.

I experience it also last 3 days ago and it took 3 days to confirmed.

[wearepoor]

Most of the time its because of multiple unconfirmed transactions, sometimes it takes lot of time to confirm the transactions and it delays the overall transaction.

[MWesterweele]

Because sometimes blockchain having some problems so sometimes transaction taking long time sometimes you need to wait 8-12 hours before transaction finish but its normal cause i think that's the time they having a maintenance or some if you want a sure answer you can send an question to blockchain to know the real reason why they have slow transaction sometime, that will help you and they will answer you and that answer is sure.And all transactions is undergoing to blockchain so dont expect fast and instant transactions cause there are millions of transactions being confirmed by blockchain.