Now that we've reached the 250kb soft limit...

[GIANNAT]

how can be block 224711 more than 250kB?

http://blockchain.info/it/block-index/355118/000000000000003a49c4828ebf1b042f48058f4bbec461b5e3648a30e9e30d4d

The 250KB "limit" is simply the default maximum block size created by the reference implementation that most miners use. Nodes will still accept up to the hard maximum block size, which is 1MB.

For instance, on testnet there have been two 1MB blocks created: 00000000476781c04b82b3ea91af1a86f3a863e1c9312b50302ffa01b7bdf960 and 0000000010bf4453b170a6756d911e207734ae181af6c8c02b42787d5885b333

thanks for the explanation

[1714178762]

1714178762

[conv3rsion]

This is so fucking naive.

I'm not sure if that's true. In some cases I'm more inclined to believe malice to be more likely than ignorance.

Some people don't want Bitcoin to be successful.

I agree, I don't give a shit about anyone else's alt chains, bonded banking startup, or ripple investments. I love Bitcoin. Fuck anyone who doesn't.

[jmw74]

Simply leaving the max blocksize limit at 1mb and walking away is such a huge mistake, I really can't believe so many people don't see it.

If the bitcoin community doesn't deliver on small transactions, someone else will.  You know who that someone else will be?  Paypal.  Banks.  Government.   By leaving the blocksize limit in place, you're handing the power right back to the corporate and government interests that you just pulled off a fucking miracle taking it away from.  All this nonsense about "a market will emerge" is just bullshit, Paypal is what happens when you just sit back and let someone else do it.  People have no idea what's possible until you show them.  If you just let the market handle it, the people will just get what they expect.

Bitcoin has gotten as far as it has precisely because it's not controlled by corporate or government interests.  Don't stop now, the finish line is still a ways away.  

I'm not saying the blockchain necessarily needs to store all these tiny transactions.  But the solution needs to come from right here.  

[Kempelen]

I don't give a shit about anyone else's alt chains, bonded banking startup, or ripple investments. I love Bitcoin. Fuck anyone who doesn't.

+10 internets verify

[gmaxwell]

Some people might be interested in some analysis of recent blocks.

There seems to be a substantial rise in high fee transactions (fees as high at 0.005 BTC/KB) out-competing other transactions.  I've been calling these transaction dead-puppies due to a incomprehensible made on IRC. In any case, running a script to identify the DP-involved transactions on the recent blocks show. A transaction is considered DP involved if it pays to an identified DP address or if any of its inputs paid to an identified DP address.

Height  Size    Amount of DP-involved.
224737 163012 82.0755%
224736 498888 94.9111%
224735 163124 27.1875%
224734 249140 93.4021%
224733 351883  6.77507%
224732 498991 85.5789%
224731 249033 67.8657%
224730 169849 55.9459%
224729 487840 76.87%
224728 249091 80.2395%
224727 249204 64.2512%
224726 187733 69.8947%
224725 121400 49.0196%
224724 248878 69.899%
224723 248923 72.5989%

The couple blocks with lower than typical DP concentrations appear to be miners that have also noticed these transactions an are apparently depriortizing them, though they don't get all of them because they appear to identify them only on the basis of output addresses rather than the transaction history.

Of note, the concentration was similar to somewhat lower 24 hours ago when there were fewer >250KB blocks.  Because the supply of these transactions seems to be basically unbounded it seems likely that adjustments to block target sizes are unlikely to produce faster confirmations at this time.

[solex]

I've been calling these transaction dead-puppies due to a incomprehensible made on IRC.

This is interesting, but can you just clarify the term again, please?

[Syke]

There seems to be a substantial rise in high fee transactions (fees as high at 0.005 BTC/KB) out-competing other transactions.  I've been calling these transaction dead-puppies due to a incomprehensible made on IRC.

Dead puppies aren't much fun.

[johnyj]

11. Many people, most non-technical, clamor for the block size limit to be lifted.
12. Fees reach an equilibrium where they remain stable.
13. Spurred by the profitability of Bitcoin transactions, alternate chains appear to capture the users that Bitcoin lost.
14. Pleased with their profitability, miners refuse to accept any hard fork to block size.

11. News articles start appearing in the media pointing our the 7 tps hard transaction limit as a fatal flaw in Bitcoin.
12. At best, fees never exceed 1/10 to 1/5 the block subsidy.
13. Businesses investment drastically slows with regards to all forms of distributed cryptocurrency and more capital is directed towards centralized solutions.
14. Miners realize they killed the goose that laid the golden egg.

Compare the following case:
1. News articles start appearing in the media pointing 7tps hard transaction limit of bitcoin blockchain
2. News articles start appearing in the media pointing a hard fork happened inside bitcoin which created two different bitcoin network: Bitcoin legacy and Bitcoin 2.0, and there will be 3 types of coin: Pre-fork coin, after-fork coin 2.0 and after-fork coin legacy. And possibly in the future there will be another new type of coin together with another fork... with each fork another 11 million of coin were created immediately

Which one do you think will more likely to cause people abandon bitcoin