Is the mempool being jammed solid for a few days now good or bad for the price?

[r0ach]

That's the problem.  For other coins to get big, people's desire for low transaction fees would have to weigh in higher importance than price stability.  Even if all you did was buy cryptocurrency X solely to send a transaction and never held it for anything else, someone somewhere down the line has to desire to want to hold it for more than that for the system to function.  Before MatTheCat pulls his "blah blah Bitcoin is not stable", Bitcoin is still in price discovery phase, it will eventually become much more stable, but it's more stable now than it was in the past already.

[1714184667]

1714184667

[kwukduck]

Who cares about its effect on the price? Only if you're interested in bitcoin to make profit in fiat i guess one woule care.

This should be if much greater concern to all of us that want bitcoin to actually work and bring something good to the world economy and financial freedom for the people.

I've been warning ahout this for well over a year now but people in large numbers seem to happily stick their heads in the sand and act as if there is no huge ass problem right in front of them.

I'll say it again, this will kill bitcoin within the year if it is not fixed. So far i got 2 people on board that are willing to work on a future proof scaleable Bitcoin but it would be even better if we got the entire community and specially main devs to actually solve this.

[r0ach]

This should be if much greater concern to all of us that want bitcoin to actually work

You are a paid shill that spams the price will crash to $0 every day of the week.  Anyone can look at your post history and see 20 pages in a row of this garbage to verify this.  The moron that used to own that account sold it and now banking shill spammers use it.

[chopstick]

I've been warning ahout this for well over a year now but people in large numbers seem to happily stick their heads in the sand and act as if there is no huge ass problem right in front of them.

I'll say it again, this will kill bitcoin within the year if it is not fixed. So far i got 2 people on board that are willing to work on a future proof scaleable Bitcoin but it would be even better if we got the entire community and specially main devs to actually solve this.

This scaling stupidity has directly contributed to the rise of Ether.

I had someone tell me today that I'm a "socialist freeloader" for pointing out the fact that an artificial fee market is unnecessary at this point right now.

Fucking morons. I really do wonder if some of these people are paid shills.

[r0ach]

This scaling stupidity has directly contributed to the rise of Ether.

Ethereum is an IPO scamcoin:

The Ethereum Paradox

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1361602.0

Why proof of stake has no value:

Since Satoshi did not solve the Byzantine generals problem, this means confirmations are completely arbitrary.  So why are two confirmations more useful in Bitcoin (PoW) than one?  Because it's an open entropy system where over a period of time, it's either unlikely or statistically impossible for someone to maintain a monopoly on block validation when there is no upper limit to confirmations.

Recursive systems like proof of stake tend to permanently monopolize block validation by design, with no real fault or state recovery to fix it once it goes off the rails.  The act of introducing interest compounds this problem even more.  This makes a proof of stake confirmation essentially worthless due to being a bounded entropy system.

On top of being worthless, proof of stake is also a permissioned ledger.  The purpose of mining in Bitcoin is to create a permanent decentralized exchange peg, which thus results in a permissionless system.

[chopstick]

Ethereum is an IPO scamcoin:

Does it matter if it's an IPO scamcoin if it's gaining steady adoption from exchanges, marketplaces, and businesses, plus a major increase in users, while BTC's tx capacity continues to be limited with no end in sight?

Bitcoiners have gone full retard. You are not a "socialist freeloader" for pointing out the obvious fact that an un-needed artificial fee market has negative effects.

[kwukduck]

@r0ach

You speak many truths but you also keep ignoring big problems with bitcoin.

ETH being a scam is irrelevant to bitcoins problems.

If we want bitcoin to work we need to fix IT instead of bashing altcoins.

[Holliday]

My mempool is typically under 1MB and contains less than 1k transactions. Yes, including during the past few days. In fact, I just checked it again and it's right around half those numbers I just mentioned. My node has damn near 100% uptime and plenty of connections.

Why?

Because my node doesn't forward spam transactions (very low and no fee transactions)!

Bitcoin provides a means for censorship-proof value transfer. If you think the best use case for that is buying some coffee or gambling with a few satoshis, and you aren't willing to pay a decent fee, you can wait a few fucking blocks for your first confirmation, you cheap ass!

If you think requiring every full node to hold exponentially increasing spam transactions forever (increase block size to gain more tps) is a good idea, then you obviously care nothing for decentralization or censorship-proof transactions in the first place.

Bitcoin doesn't need fixed. People need to pick the best tool for the job.

All transactions do not need to be censorship-proof in a world where censorship-proof transactions exist. The possibility of censorship-proof transactions by itself will cut down on censorship because it will be seen as futile.

[samurai1200]

Bitcoin doesn't need fixed. People need to pick the best tool for the job.

Haha dammit, I wish I could filter posts by joined date. This is all i was thinking while reading through the thread. Bravo!

[silverbox]

This is all you need to know about the so called "mempool problem":

In any system with no minimum transaction fee, the blocks will always be full even if you raised block size to 10 gigs.  All that matters is what the price to get included in a block is, but no blockchain is suitable for microtransactions in the first place.  Even with 10 MB blocks, all small transactions would be pushed off-chain onto things like the shift card or second tier solutions like Lightning Network.  It will never be economical to do microtransactions (buying a pack of cigarettes) using a blockchain.  Blockchains are only suitable for high value transactions or settlement layer.

Since when was the blockchain only suitable for high value transactions?  Since big money has been invested to take over that part of bitcoin by for profit centralized companies?  Some of the best use cases for BTC that have been bandied about over the years are microtransactions across the world and to provide bank like services to 3rd world countries where getting a bank account is difficult.  Now because big business is telling us that they want that part, we just knuckle under and go along with it?  The dream of decentralized money for all is over?  

[Spaceman_Spiff]

Bitcoin provides a means for censorship-proof value transfer. If you think the best use case for that is buying some coffee or gambling with a few satoshis, and you aren't willing to pay a decent fee, you can wait a few fucking blocks for your first confirmation, you cheap ass!

Bitcoin doesn't need fixed. People need to pick the best tool for the job.

All transactions do not need to be censorship-proof in a world where censorship-proof transactions exist. The possibility of censorship-proof transactions by itself will cut down on censorship because it will be seen as futile.

Just waiting a few blocks will not solve everything if the amount of high fee transactions keeps increasing...
And no, we don't need every transaction on earth to go onto the blockchain, but surely we want bitcoin to be maximally useful, no?

[silverbox]

Mempool still 22Mb.

[silverbox]

Finally the logjam is over.  5+ days..  Yet the suggested price per kb is still 3x higher then before the logjam..  If everytime the price jumps we get a huge jam up of transactions and the suggested cost to get a transaction on the chain triples, the costs will be sky high in no time.  Then where has our low cost decentralized system gone?

[Syke]

Since when was the blockchain only suitable for high value transactions?

Since day-1.

Some of the best use cases for BTC that have been bandied about over the years are microtransactions across the world

Only by people who don't understand bitcoin. Every full node stores every transaction back to the beginning of the time. That's a horrible design for a worldwide microtransaction system.

Someday the features may be added to bitcoin to support such transactions, but the current design is absolutely not appropriate. Until that day, bitcoin is designed for high-value transactions.

[silverbox]

Since when was the blockchain only suitable for high value transactions?

Since day-1.

Some of the best use cases for BTC that have been bandied about over the years are microtransactions across the world

Only by people who don't understand bitcoin. Every full node stores every transaction back to the beginning of the time. That's a horrible design for a worldwide microtransaction system.

Someday the features may be added to bitcoin to support such transactions, but the current design is absolutely not appropriate. Until that day, bitcoin is designed for high-value transactions.

Not buying it.  Visa,MC, traditional bank accounts can store the worlds transactions, but the blockchain can't?

We have ~7000 nodes atm.  75Gbyte each.  So each node needs a $50 dollar 1 Tbyte drive × 7000.  350,000 usd to store the data of a 10,000,000,000 usd system.  Thats um..  0.0035%    and your telling me its to expensive?

[Syke]

Not buying it.  Visa,MC, traditional bank accounts can store the worlds transactions, but the blockchain can't?

Yes, because they're not storing thousands of copies of the data and transferring all the transactions thousands of times. The blockchain is highly redundant.

We have ~7000 nodes atm.  75Gbyte each.  So each node needs a $50 dollar 1 Tbyte drive × 7000.  350,000 usd to store the data of a 10,000,000,000 usd system.  Thats um..  0.0035%    and your telling me its to expensive?

Yes, that's fine now, because it's not storing worldwide microtransactions in that 75 GB. Worldwide microtransactions would balloon that blockchain millions of times that size. Try storing 75 PB on 7000+ nodes and see how expensive that is.

[alani123]

Since when was the blockchain only suitable for high value transactions?

Since day-1.

Some of the best use cases for BTC that have been bandied about over the years are microtransactions across the world

Only by people who don't understand bitcoin. Every full node stores every transaction back to the beginning of the time. That's a horrible design for a worldwide microtransaction system.

Someday the features may be added to bitcoin to support such transactions, but the current design is absolutely not appropriate. Until that day, bitcoin is designed for high-value transactions.

Not buying it.  Visa,MC, traditional bank accounts can store the worlds transactions, but the blockchain can't?

We have ~7000 nodes atm.  75Gbyte each.  So each node needs a $50 dollar 1 Tbyte drive × 7000.  350,000 usd to store the data of a 10,000,000,000 usd system.  Thats um..  0.0035%    and your telling me its to expensive?

I don't think that those two should be compared so extensively. They're different by design.

[silverbox]

Not buying it.  Visa,MC, traditional bank accounts can store the worlds transactions, but the blockchain can't?

Yes, because they're not storing thousands of copies of the data and transferring all the transactions thousands of times. The blockchain is highly redundant.

We have ~7000 nodes atm.  75Gbyte each.  So each node needs a $50 dollar 1 Tbyte drive × 7000.  350,000 usd to store the data of a 10,000,000,000 usd system.  Thats um..  0.0035%    and your telling me its to expensive?

Yes, that's fine now, because it's not storing worldwide microtransactions in that 75 GB. Worldwide microtransactions would balloon that blockchain millions of times that size. Try storing 75 PB on 7000+ nodes and see how expensive that is.

Even with 1000s more copies, the cost of storage is so insanely cheap in comparison to the overall value of the system.  The cost of storage for paper bills and coins is something like 2-3% of the system, crypto is .004%..  Crypto's storage cost is basically zero.  Banks storage costs are not in the computer systems, its in the brick and mortar store fronts, the employee's to talk to customers, the handling of paper bills, the advertising costs to gain new customers, etc. etc.  Crypto has none of that bullshit, just transaction storage for virtually zero percent of the system.

It all scales together, people who have been following bitcoin since the beginning realize this.. The price used to be lower the blockchain used to be smaller... If bitcoin has a blockchain 100 times bigger, it has a price 100 times higher, and the percent of the system cost for storage is still the same.  ~.004%.

If btc is 100 times bigger, blockchain size = 7500 Gbyte,  price per coin= 70,000 USD, percent of system cost for storage ~.004%.

Back when I was mining in 2012 on gpu rigs the blockchain was like 5 gigs, and BTC were $5 each.  Now they are both bigger.  Storage just keeps getting cheaper (Moore's law), the blockchain keeps getting bigger and the value of BTC keeps getting higher.

There is a cap, I estimate a million peeps are using BTC on a regular basis, it can only get maybe 10,000 times bigger, (10 billion peeps using it *the whole planet*).  By the time we have the whole planet using BTC, I imagine Moore's law will have created big enough storage systems for cheap enough that we can have millions of copies of the blockchain. 

[Holliday]

Then where has our low cost decentralized system gone?

The cost of transaction security has always been subsidized by the block reward. While that's a nice way to boot strap the system (enticing both users and miners while infrastructure grows), it's not the end game. Early Bitcoiners were spoiled by these cheap/free transactions (I know I was). If we want secure transactions in the future, the days of cheap/free transactions have to come to a close and apparently we are going to have to drag the spoiled brats along kicking and screaming.

If you want free transactions forever, go ask Mike Heam to set up some network assurance contracts. Err wait... the poster child for free transactions forever pulled a whiny rage quit.

[Holliday]

Even with 1000s more copies, the cost of storage is so insanely cheap in comparison to the overall value of the system.  The cost of storage for paper bills and coins is something like 2-3% of the system, crypto is .004%..  Crypto's storage cost is basically zero.  Banks storage costs are not in the computer systems, its in the brick and mortar store fronts, the employee's to talk to customers, the handling of paper bills, the advertising costs to gain new customers, etc. etc.  Crypto has none of that bullshit, just transaction storage for virtually zero percent of the system.

It all scales together, people who have been following bitcoin since the beginning realize this.. The price used to be lower the blockchain used to be smaller... If bitcoin has a blockchain 100 times bigger, it has a price 100 times higher, and the percent of the system cost for storage is still the same.  ~.004%.

If btc is 100 times bigger, blockchain size = 7500 Gbyte,  price per coin= 70,000 USD, percent of system cost for storage ~.004%.

Back when I was mining in 2012 on gpu rigs the blockchain was like 5 gigs, and BTC were $5 each.  Now they are both bigger.  Storage just keeps getting cheaper (Moore's law), the blockchain keeps getting bigger and the value of BTC keeps getting higher.

There is a cap, I estimate a million peeps are using BTC on a regular basis, it can only get maybe 10,000 times bigger, (10 billion peeps using it *the whole planet*).  By the time we have the whole planet using BTC, I imagine Moore's law will have created big enough storage systems for cheap enough that we can have millions of copies of the blockchain.  

All this talk of storage, yet you seem to be forgetting the bandwidth required to keep all the peers on the same page.

The last time I rebooted my full node PC was May 26. Since then my node has uploaded over 500 GB of data to other peers on the network. That's probably already beyond the monthly cap of most top home tier internet services.

I'm not an altruist. I believe in the network and I run a full node because it helps the value of my coins. If you increase the amount of data I need to share without making optimizations, you are increasing my cost to run a full node. At some point, I will have to stop. I don't know about you, but I prefer a network with more nodes, not less. I'd rather err on the side of decentralization.

The blocks are full, but they are full of spam. If you simply increase the size, they will certainly fill right back up with more spam. That doesn't sound like a reasonable solution to me.