|
GermanGiant (OP)
|
 |
March 29, 2016, 05:58:24 PM |
|
100% of the last 30 blocks (404860 - 404828) are over 0.9mb. 2000+ BTC in Tx fee available from 6618 transactions. Why are not you still mining with a client that supports 2mb blocks ?   |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VirosaGITS
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1068
|
|
March 29, 2016, 06:03:23 PM |
|
Because Bitcoin has a 1mB limit and a hard fork would be needed to change it, along with all that this entail. |
|
|
|
|
GermanGiant (OP)
|
|
March 29, 2016, 06:05:27 PM |
|
Because Bitcoin has a 1mB limit and a hard fork would be needed to change it, along with all that this entail.
Did u even understand the meaning of this statement ? Why are not you still mining with a client that supports 2mb blocks ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
jacobmayes94
|
|
March 29, 2016, 06:06:10 PM |
|
We would HAVE to upgrade the block size eventually, it wouldn't be able to handle any more widespread adoption without things stalling
|
|
|
|
|
|
GermanGiant (OP)
|
|
March 29, 2016, 06:10:04 PM |
|
We would HAVE to upgrade the block size eventually, it wouldn't be able to handle any more widespread adoption without things stalling
SegWit is in pipeline, Lightning Network helps... all I agree. But, raising blocksize to 2mb wont break the decentralization either. In fact, Adam Back, Matt Corallo et all has already promised this to happen in 2017. So, if something is not broken in 2017, that is not broken in 2016 either. |
|
|
|
|
jonnybravo0311
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1344
Merit: 1023
Mine at Jonny's Pool
|
|
March 29, 2016, 06:16:46 PM |
|
Just posting a screenshot and stating that the last 30 blocks have been full, and there are still unconfirmed transactions doesn't give the whole picture.
On my pool, prior to the latest block (404861) I had just over 2000 transactions in my mempool with just over 1BTC in fees. When Bitfury hit the block, my mempool went down to under 30 transactions.
My point being that the vast majority of the unconfirmed transactions on the network right now don't meet the rate limiter qualifications - i.e. they are spam or very low fee transactions that most pools are simply going to ignore until such time as the higher-paying, higher-priority transactions are processed.
Don't get me wrong - I support larger blocks. However, you are taking a very small sample set to make your argument.
|
Jonny's Pool - Mine with us and help us grow! Support a pool that supports Bitcoin, not a hardware manufacturer's pockets! No SPV cheats. No empty blocks.
|
|
|
|
defined
|
|
March 29, 2016, 06:20:16 PM |
|
We would HAVE to upgrade the block size eventually, it wouldn't be able to handle any more widespread adoption without things stalling
I agree. Transactions used to be much faster than they are now. How can Bitcoin become mainstream if transactions are not processed within reasonable time? |
|
|
|
|
HagssFIN
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2436
Merit: 1706
Electrical engineer. Mining since 2014.
|
|
March 29, 2016, 06:23:02 PM |
|
Chinese and some other miners mining empty blocks is a bigger problem IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
GermanGiant (OP)
|
|
March 29, 2016, 06:31:44 PM |
|
Chinese and some other miners mining empty blocks is a bigger problem IMO.
Among last 50 blocks (404865 - 404816) only 4 blocks are below 0.9mb, whereas only 1 is empty block. The empty block (404827), mined by AntPool was released within a minute of the last block mined by Bitfury before. So, it is clear, that they released the one they immediately hit. In a tight market like mining, u can not expect someone to wave out 25 BTC. |
|
|
|
|
jonnybravo0311
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1344
Merit: 1023
Mine at Jonny's Pool
|
|
March 29, 2016, 06:43:02 PM |
|
Again, extremely small sample set. 50 blocks? Come on, now  . In the last 2 diff changes AntPool has ~12% of its blocks empty. When I ran the data yesterday 223 of their 1870 blocks were empty. 223 blocks multiplied by an average 1500 transactions per block: 334500 transactions that could have been confirmed but weren't. That's one pool - granted they are the worst offending one. So, how about everyone stops mining on the pools producing the empty blocks and starts mining on pools that properly validate the work and always have transactions in the mempool? Once that happens and we are straining against the limit of the block size, then we can worry about increasing it. |
Jonny's Pool - Mine with us and help us grow! Support a pool that supports Bitcoin, not a hardware manufacturer's pockets! No SPV cheats. No empty blocks.
|
|
|
bitdumper
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 266
Merit: 250
One world One currency, Bitcoin.
|
|
March 29, 2016, 06:43:52 PM |
|
increasing block size will increase low fee transaction
and miners will be in loss
i think this is a right blocksize
probably there is spam going on
|
|
|
|
|
defined
|
|
March 29, 2016, 07:10:55 PM |
|
probably there is spam going on
I use a service that needs 0.0005 BTC each time I use it. I do not want to pay a high fee for such a small transaction. For Bitcoin to grow, that should be possible. My bank does not tell me I am not allowed to make a small payment without paying a fee. Bitcoin should not be more expensive than my bank. |
|
|
|
|
HagssFIN
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2436
Merit: 1706
Electrical engineer. Mining since 2014.
|
|
March 29, 2016, 07:23:32 PM |
|
Again, extremely small sample set. 50 blocks? Come on, now . In the last 2 diff changes AntPool has ~12% of its blocks empty. When I ran the data yesterday 223 of their 1870 blocks were empty. 223 blocks multiplied by an average 1500 transactions per block: 334500 transactions that could have been confirmed but weren't. That's one pool - granted they are the worst offending one. So, how about everyone stops mining on the pools producing the empty blocks and starts mining on pools that properly validate the work and always have transactions in the mempool? Once that happens and we are straining against the limit of the block size, then we can worry about increasing it. Exactly. Thanks for backing up my point Jonny |
|
|
|
VirosaGITS
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1068
|
|
March 29, 2016, 07:35:19 PM |
|
Because Bitcoin has a 1mB limit and a hard fork would be needed to change it, along with all that this entail.
Did u even understand the meaning of this statement ? Why are not you still mining with a client that supports 2mb blocks ?
Yes. But do you? Using a different client that support 2mB blocks won't actually allow it. A Fork need to happen first. For this to happen you need Antpool, BTCC, F2P and most of every one else to agree. Meanwhile in China, AntPool is indeed SPV mining empty blocks because they dont care. You can't contact any of the big pools by posting here so you're wasting your time. Now all you're doing is actually starting the 420th threat on the Bitcoin fork topic, which has been talked through and through several time and doing it in the wrong forum section. |
|
|
|
kano
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4494
Merit: 1808
Linux since 1997 RedHat 4
|
|
March 29, 2016, 08:29:27 PM |
|
Because Bitcoin has a 1mB limit and a hard fork would be needed to change it, along with all that this entail.
Did u even understand the meaning of this statement ? Why are not you still mining with a client that supports 2mb blocks ?
Coz Classic includes SPV mining which is bad for bitcoin. |
|
|
|
MRKLYE
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1358
Merit: 1003
Designer - Developer
|
|
March 29, 2016, 08:32:47 PM |
|
The developers and miners not reaching a consensus on blockchain size in my opinion is a calculated move to spread FUD and drop coin prices allowing the large whales to load up on cheap BTC before they decide to go to a bigger block size shortly before / after the halving.. *speculation*
|
|
|
|
leowonderful
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1624
Merit: 1129
Bitcoin FTW!
|
|
March 30, 2016, 12:24:57 AM |
|
..aand that's where we get these 1-2 week long transaction backlogs where fees become obscenely high and blocks are full 75% of the time. I remember just 2 months ago blocks were fine and even free transactions were processing very quickly. Now you need to go above the recommended fee to get that same speed. Where did we go wrong? I'm sure we all know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
marky89
|
|
March 30, 2016, 03:40:50 AM |
|
probably there is spam going on
I use a service that needs 0.0005 BTC each time I use it. I do not want to pay a high fee for such a small transaction. For Bitcoin to grow, that should be possible. My bank does not tell me I am not allowed to make a small payment without paying a fee. Bitcoin should not be more expensive than my bank. Merchants enforce minimum purchase amounts on credit cards all the time, to prevent cheap users from saddling them with processing fees that do not justify accepting such small payments at all. This is quite the same. Bitcoin could be more expensive than your bank...why not? Nobody owes you extremely cheap tx, certainly not miners and nodes that bear the real cost to relay them. Bitcoin is capable of micro payments -- see Lightning Network and payment channels -- but patience will be required. |
|
|
|
|
defined
|
|
March 30, 2016, 08:11:35 AM |
|
Nobody owes you extremely cheap tx, certainly not miners and nodes that bear the real cost to relay them.
The "real" cost for miners is caused by the high block reward. When bitcoin was worth $1 or less, miners were fine. They got $50! The higher bitcoin price has only caused the difficulty to go up, and that is the real cost to miners. Not my small transaction, Satoshi himself could have included that on just one PC. Miners get over $10000 per block. If that gets higher because of transaction fees, miners will not earn more, it will only lead to a higher difficulty as more mining rigs are added to the network. |
|
|
|
|
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1007
Poor impulse control.
|
|
March 30, 2016, 08:33:38 AM |
|
Nobody owes you extremely cheap tx, certainly not miners and nodes that bear the real cost to relay them.
The "real" cost for miners is caused by the high block reward. When bitcoin was worth $1 or less, miners were fine. They got $50! The higher bitcoin price has only caused the difficulty to go up, and that is the real cost to miners. Not my small transaction, Satoshi himself could have included that on just one PC. Miners get over $10000 per block. If that gets higher because of transaction fees, miners will not earn more, it will only lead to a higher difficulty as more mining rigs are added to the network. When bitcoin was worth $1 or less the difficulty was already skyrocketing. |
|
|
|
|
