Average block size was 0.951 MB

[countryfree]

See what happened on the 15th of June:

https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=30days&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=

I don't want to scare anyone but if there are some people who think that a block size increase isn't URGENT, they're wrong. We only have a 5% margin to full capacity and the effects are already being felt.
I made 2 transactions on Thursday, both with a 0.0001 BTC fee. One was 226 bytes and it went smoothly, another was 930 bytes, it took more than 4 hours to confirm. I'm expecting the situation to get worse. Unless the block size is increased.

[Real-Duke]

Sent a payment of 1,5btc on tuesday that was confirmed today morning after ~5days!
Have forgotten to check the mempool before I sent the coins. With 35k open transactions and a small fee of 0,00002...not my best idea so far 

[franky1]

lets await the usual blockstream suspects who will pretend that scalability is not a problem and tell people to just pay more.
leading the way to making bitcoin more expensive to use, to further their agenda to create sidechains and move people away from bitcoin.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

Sent a payment of 1,5btc on tuesday that was confirmed today morning after ~5days!
Have forgotten to check the mempool before I sent the coins. With 35k open transactions and a small fee of 0,00002...not my best idea so far 

Damn that is a long time to confirm, you're obviously clued up though & you realise why, the fee was way too small
I always pay higher than the average fee because I'm always keen to see quick confirmations.

[franky1]

Sent a payment of 1,5btc on tuesday that was confirmed today morning after ~5days!
Have forgotten to check the mempool before I sent the coins. With 35k open transactions and a small fee of 0,00002...not my best idea so far 

Damn that is a long time to confirm, you're obviously clued up though & you realise why, the fee was way too small
I always pay higher than the average fee because I'm always keen to see quick confirmations.

everyone is keen to see quick confirmations. thats the problem its either pay more or wait. there is no mechanism for pay 90% and guarantee confirm in an hour, pay 80% and guarantee in 2 hours. its just pay more or wait.

which is not a "free market" concept but a "open market" concept.

we should not be forcing a fee war especially when its not essential to pools for decades and especially when there is no mechanism to help people have a true choice of priority that actually works

[yayayo]

A spam transaction with a below average 0.0001 BTC fee confirmed after 4 hours. So what? I think this shows that a healthy fee market is not fully developed, because spam transactions like OP's still receive this kind of premium service.

We need more fee pressure to incentivize optimizations for automated transactions and to drive transaction spam out. Microtransactions do not need the same level of service at a native Bitcoin layer than ordinary transactions. The former are better served by payment channels, that work faster and more efficiently for this use case.

There is no urgency to increase the blocksize at all. Bitcoin is working fine despite the staged drama from bigblock-fanatics.

ya.ya.yo!

[Batelk]

A spam transaction with a below average 0.0001 BTC fee confirmed after 4 hours. So what? I think this shows that a healthy fee market is not fully developed, because spam transactions like OP's still receive this kind of premium service.

We need more fee pressure to incentivize optimizations for automated transactions and to drive transaction spam out. Microtransactions do not need the same level of service at a native Bitcoin layer than ordinary transactions. The former are better served by payment channels, that work faster and more efficiently for this use case.

There is no urgency to increase the blocksize at all. Bitcoin is working fine despite the staged drama from bigblock-fanatics.

ya.ya.yo!

Spam transactions? I sent 2.6 bitcoin a few days ago with 0.001 bitcoin with just 226Byte, it took more than 5 hours to confirm.

[rizzlarolla]

See what happened on the 15th of June:
https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=30days&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=

Click on 2 years to clearly see the growth of transactions, and the inevitability of full blocks.

I don't want to scare anyone but if there are some people who think that a block size increase isn't URGENT, they're wrong.

Core don't want bigger blocks. They want this fee market situation. This is Cores idea.

We only have a 5% margin to full capacity and the effects are already being felt.

We can not achieve 100% full blocks. 95% is about it, maybe 97%, not sure but 100% is not realistically achievable.

I'm expecting the situation to get worse. Unless the block size is increased.

It is not possible to get any better, in the near future, under current Core plans. Unless users are driven away from Bitcoin.

..the problem its either pay more or wait. there is no mechanism for pay 90% and guarantee confirm in an hour, pay 80% and guarantee in 2 hours. its just pay more or wait.

That is a problem, and just adds to the correct fee confusion. As you say, this is hit and hope.
Even "currently recommended" fees, in a rising market, suffer this problem. (as just seen)
Due to Cores dynamic fees, the only (almost) sure way to get in the next block is to out bid all other current fee payers.

[onlinedragon]

Sent a payment of 1,5btc on tuesday that was confirmed today morning after ~5days!
Have forgotten to check the mempool before I sent the coins. With 35k open transactions and a small fee of 0,00002...not my best idea so far 

Wow that is ridiculous you can't count on your money this way. When even a normal bank transaction is faster than a bitcoin transaction. Thought it was meant to be a fast solution to send money to each other.

[Lauda]

Sent a payment of 1,5btc on tuesday that was confirmed today morning after ~5days!
Have forgotten to check the mempool before I sent the coins. With 35k open transactions and a small fee of 0,00002...not my best idea so far  

There is no such thing as "the mempool" and certainly not with "35k open transactions". This solely depends on the settings that a specific node uses. My node has had 40-50k unconfirmed transactions on average for months, but you could clearly see that the mempool at other places (e.g. blockchain.info) was almost empty at times.

Spam transactions? I sent 2.6 bitcoin a few days ago with 0.001 bitcoin with just 226Byte, it took more than 5 hours to confirm.

Provide TX ID or go away with these stories.

I'm expecting the situation to get worse. Unless the block size is increased.

Bullshit by people who don't know what they're talking about (again). A block size limit increase is no solution at all. It does not improve scalability, it does not do anything than open an already pressurized valve even further and hope for the best. Regardless of what you set the block size limit at, the very same people will be able to spam it up all again and then we will have the same people complain (again) about unconfirmed transactions because they don't know how to use the fee system properly.

Wow that is ridiculous you can't count on your money this way. When even a normal bank transaction is faster than a bitcoin transaction. Thought it was meant to be a fast solution to send money to each other.

Bitcoin is faster than anything in the traditional system if you use it properly. If you don't use it properly, you can't blame Bitcoin for slow transactions. Period.

[isen]

It's getting very annoying,2 days ago i sent a payment of 0.14 btc and it took about 3 hours to be confirmed.
This must  change asap otherwise it will hurt btc

[Lauda]

It's getting very annoying,2 days ago i sent a payment of 0.14 btc and it took about 3 hours to be confirmed.
This must be change asap otherwise it will hurt btc

No. Bitcoin is working as intended. Don't blame Bitcoin if: 1) You're cheap. 2) You don't know how to use it properly. I have yet to find someone that I know (which are mostly experienced members) that had "problems with this". Besides, Segwit is getting ready to be merged. The "awaited" capacity 'boost' will come with it.

[franky1]

ha ha ha,, told you lauda would chime in

and WTF he is pretending there is no mempool now..

wait i got to quote him saying that for posterity sake

There is no such thing as "the mempool"

seriously he really needs to learn some bitcoin basics

oh this gave me a chuckle

certainly not with "35k open transactions". This solely depends on the settings that a specific node uses. My node has had 40-50k unconfirmed transactions on average for months, but you could clearly see that the mempool at other places (e.g. blockchain.info) was almost empty at times.

lauda's logic is based on the fact that bitcoin blocks dont need transactions to make a block,
but his false logic is that he will continue to say bitcoin is running fine even if there are no transactions, a couple transactions or thousands.. because he doesnt see, or want to see bitcoin as something useful for people actually transacting..

he cannot accept the fact that people want to make transactions so transactions are important.
im starting to think he is getting jealous of bitcoin and wants some altcoin to steal bitcoins utility and is trying his damned hardest to twist things until his blockstream pals have sidechains live so he can sell people onto the promise of sidechains..

what made me laugh the most is this statement applies to segwit even more..

Bullshit by people who don't know what they're talking about (again). A block size limit increase is no solution at all. It does not improve scalability, it does not do anything than open an already pressurized valve even further and hope for the best. Regardless of what you set the block size limit at, the very same people will be able to spam it up all again and then we will have the same people complain (again) about unconfirmed transactions because they don't know how to use the fee system properly.

the reasons
1. segwit only overs 1.8x at most.. meaning less scaling than 2mb
2. segwit offers discount on fees.. meaning cheaper to spam

[rizzlarolla]

It's getting very annoying,2 days ago i sent a payment of 0.14 btc and it took about 3 hours to be confirmed.
This must be change asap otherwise it will hurt btc

No. Bitcoin is working as intended. Don't blame Bitcoin if: 1) You're cheap. 2) You don't know how to use it properly. I have yet to find someone that I know (which are mostly experienced members) that had "problems with this". Besides, Segwit is getting ready to be merged. The "awaited" capacity 'boost' will come with it.

Yes. Bitcoin is working as intended by Core. Don't blame Bitcoin if:
1) You can't work out the correct Core dynamic fee. (you will also need to see the future to be sure )
2) You didn't know paying higher and higher fees is in the Core roadmap. ...vvv

[isvicre]

It's getting very annoying,2 days ago i sent a payment of 0.14 btc and it took about 3 hours to be confirmed.
This must be change asap otherwise it will hurt btc

Adjust your fee.  Ive made payments all week with a. 0002 fee and had no issues with waiting hours.

[franky1]

It's getting very annoying,2 days ago i sent a payment of 0.14 btc and it took about 3 hours to be confirmed.
This must be change asap otherwise it will hurt btc

Adjust your fee.  Ive made payments all week with a. 0002 fee and had no issues with waiting hours.

the point is not "just pay more" the point is if everyone "just pays more" the problem is not solved
5000 people paying 14cents each have the exact same problem as those same 5000 people paying $100each instead.
paying more solves nothing but drives bitcoins utility down

deciding to go with a plan that expands scalability by 1.8x instead of 2times is the weak choice in regards to scalability. oh and lets not forget that you cant segwit a segwit to go beyond 1.8x.. but you can increase a block limit by increasing a block limit to go beyond 2mb

deciding to go with a plan that discounts fee's is a weak choice in regards to reducing possibility of spam attacks as i said before.. it actually makes it easier and cheaper thanks to segwit

[Syke]

This may or may not be a problem. Transactions are still extremely cheap, so blocks are filling up. But are those transactions that important? Are the blocks filled with mostly spam-like low-value transactions? I don't have the answer.

[Lauda]

1) You can't work out the correct Core dynamic fee. (you will also need to see the future to be sure )
2) You didn't know paying higher and higher fees is in the Core roadmap. ...vvv

1) You don't have to see the future.
2) It is not part of any known Core roadmap (there is only one that I'm aware of).

This may or may not be a problem. Transactions are still extremely cheap, so blocks are filling up. But are those transactions that important? Are the blocks filled with mostly spam-like low-value transactions? I don't have the answer.

Well, you can start with this picture:

Almost all of the unconfirmed transactions include a fee that is a minimum of 5 times lower than what it should be. Then it comes down to how you define spam. An example would be signature campaigns that have daily payouts; those just waste space instead of paying weekly/bi-weekly or monthly.

[pereira4]

We have enough time. We will get Segregated Witness soon, then we will get a block size increase later on since we will have enough time with the segwit addition to make things slowly and solid instead of rushed and failing like ETH.

[franky1]

lauda's "extremely cheap".
even right now in some downtime when the mempool(yes it exists) is low, fee's are still atleast 0.00040000 per kb(40sat per byte)
thanks lauda for showing proof... you cant back out of that rhetoric
and yes the numbers are right because its not "pay minimum" mindset but "pay more then the rest" mindset. which is 30cents per kb(simple maths even lauda can achieve)

put it this way. when people start having to pay more then 50 cents with no guarantee's of it getting settled in 48 hours.. they might aswell put bank notes in an envelop and buy a first class stamp at 47cents knowing it will arrive in 1-3 business days.

we are already at halfway to the point of that figure.. and at a slight push that figure wont be enough to guarantee "priority".. so its actually conceivable people can send funds through the old mail system settled faster than bitcoin.

but hey lets wait for lauda to say transactions are meaningless, blocks will still be made no matter what and thats all that counts. empty or expensive blocks

all lauda wants to do is sell the bait (segwit) then when it doesnt solve anything he will sell the switch(LN) and when spammers dont use LN and bitcoin becomes mega expensive he will sell the next switch(sidechains AKA altcoins)..