wow ,almost 30,000 unconfirmed trans

[Meuh6879]

I paid almost 0.0003 BTC (0,2112 EURO) as fee for a small transaction and I didn't get any confirmation since almost 3 hours already, like this ain't funny anymore

fee of bank (per month) ?
fee of mastercard/visa circuit ?
fee of the POS leasing (per month) ?
fee of the global transaction per year (at the bank) ?

0,2 euros is nothing when you MUST and WANT transmit something IN A OVERHEADED week.


I pay a coffee and what ... the coffee shop need to pay is seller/provider after 2h ?
No.

This situation is nothing compare to the free network and no chargeback result.
When you emit, you will be pay after that on Bitcoin network.

Or ... vote SegWit instead.
http://bitcoin.sipa.be/versions.html

[Felimon]

Want to do something about it.

Everyone BoyCott BTC for 24 hours because of the Ignored Transaction Problems
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1690300.new#new


 

FYI:
It was higher the 50,000 earlier today.

Sounds like trying to kill the currency that we want to move forward!
If the users stop using it, then why will it have value?

There are problems to be solved, but a boycott could adversely effect the future of BTC

I am sorry, but I have to agree, Boycotting the service will not help anyone in any way, except for the government bodies who want it canned.  What would be a good reason to boycott bitcoin?  We all have money tied up into it and if it goes down, it is gone for good.

[jbreher]

I'll just sit here and wait until the things goes back to normal. Don't you?

No. I don't. I'm pretty sure this is the new normal.

Looking at the 7-day average of market cap, we are about to hit that measure's high water mark. (Currently at ~$10.2B USD and climbing fast, was only larger than this for less than ten days in Nov-Dec 2013, with max of ~$10.9B USD on 2013 Dec 12 - https://blockchain.info/charts/market-cap?timespan=all&daysAverageString=7) With this significant event coming to pass, there will be renewed interest in the popular press. With renewed interest comes an influx of new users. With an influx of new users comes additional transactions. All competing for the same limited block space.

Many will turn away in derision when The New Magic Internet Money does not seem to deliver on its promises of fast & near free. But some will suck it up and deal. Net: more usage of the blockchain. More delays in getting your transactions processed. More fees per transaction. And more stuck transactions in an ever-increasing backlog.

While all this is unfortunate, what really sucks is the forestalling of The Wave Of Adoption That Could Have Been, were it not be for a stupid maxblocksize limit.

[DarkStar_]

I paid almost 0.0003 BTC (0,2112 EURO) as fee for a small transaction and I didn't get any confirmation since almost 3 hours already, like this ain't funny anymore

Not enough info. 0.0003BTC is a low fee if you had, say, 10 inputs. I sent a transaction with above proper fees (126 satoshi/kb) a few hours ago, and it was confirmed in the next block. Your fault for using a low fee. By small, do you mean small BTC amount, or transaction size? BTC amount doesn't matter to how quickly it gets confirmed.

[lOvE mE forEvEr]

If this issue persists, I think more people would hesitate to make transactions nad just wait a while until some solutions are set into place. Even if the transaction fees are increased and there is still substantial delay, many would be turned off by this slow progress.

If this is true, with the increasing number of course the confirm sapping our time and resources. We have to think to shorten this confirmation to prevent waste time.

[outatime1]

Could it be that fees are too low for some of these and they are taking a long time. It could be that it just happens to be happening all at one time by coincidence or that miners are refusing to confirm them collectively.

[jbreher]

Could it be that fees are too low for some of these and they are taking a long time. It could be that it just happens to be happening all at one time by coincidence or that miners are refusing to confirm them collectively.

Yeah, it could be. But probably is not. How close to maximum theoretical capacity do you think is realistic?

[owlcatz]

Could it be that fees are too low for some of these and they are taking a long time. It could be that it just happens to be happening all at one time by coincidence or that miners are refusing to confirm them collectively.

Yeah, it could be. But probably is not. How close to maximum theoretical capacity do you think is realistic?

I call it a bitcoin fail, it just simply cannot scale to the current usage. Thanks.

[kiklo]

I am sorry, but I have to agree, Boycotting the service will not help anyone in any way, except for the government bodies who want it canned.  What would be a good reason to boycott bitcoin?  We all have money tied up into it and if it goes down, it is gone for good.

Boycott did not happen except for maybe me and the only 200 or so people that saw the original topic link,
BTCTalk Censored every topic listing , I had posted.

At least we know big brother is alive and well.  


As far as a  real fix to BTC transactions issues.
Here are 2 different fixes, recommend by 2 different groups. (To be honest either or both would fix the transactions issue)

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/why-viabtc-rejects-segwit-soft-fork-in-favor-of-block-size-hard-fork-interview-with-haipo-yang-1479409475

Instead, the mining pool favors a hard fork to remove the one megabyte block size limit, as proposed by Bitcoin Core fork Bitcoin Unlimited.

http://www.coindesk.com/lower-bitcoin-block-time-scale/

Using data pulled from their open source simulator of a proof-of-work blockchain (bitcoin and ethereum are two such blockchains), researchers from ETH Zürich argued that bitcoin could securely reduce its block time from 10 to 1 minute.

LTC has 4X the transaction capacity as BTC , because they have a 2½ minute block speed.

BTC could lower their block speed to the same 2½ minutes and double their block size to 2 Megabyte instead of 1 megabyte.
This would increase BTC Transactions Capacity 8X what it is today.

You have some shrills pop up, that say it is too risky or hurts security or it is just made up propaganda.
Will doing the above make BTC a match for Visa, No it will never be a direct match for visa at current infrastructure level.

OffChain Transactions will be required to match Visa, whether the lightening network or something else.
But even the LN will fail, if BTC can't handle the transactions volume, which it is already at the breaking point.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/here-s-how-bitcoin-s-lightning-network-could-fail-1467736127

The Lightning Network’s Failure Mode

The Lightning Network failure scenario described by Todd, takes place when a large number of people on the Bitcoin network need to settle their Lightning Network disputes on the blockchain in a relatively short period of time.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/here-s-how-bitcoin-s-lightning-network-could-fail-1467736127
“We do have a failure mode which is: Imagine a whole bunch of these [settlements] have to happen at once,” Todd explained. “There’s only so much data that can go through the bitcoin network and if we had a large number of Lightning channels get closed out very rapidly, how are we going to get them all confirmed? At some point, you run out of capacity.”

In a scenario where a large number of people need to settle their Lightning contracts on the blockchain, the price for doing so could increase substantially as the available space in bitcoin blocks becomes sparse. “At some point some people start losing out because the cost is just higher than what they can afford,” Todd said. “If you have a very large percentage of the network using Lightning, potentially this cost is very high. Potentially, we could get this mass outbreak of failure.”

No matter if SegWit & LN is activated next week, none of it gives a 8X increase like the earlier recommendations, so it will likely crash within a year or two, unless the underlying structure is able to handle the load.

Example:
BTC is the Foundation of Building
SegWit , the 1st floor, and LN the Skyscraper on top of it,
If BTC crumbles because it can't handle the stress, SegWit & LN are going to come crashing down on top of it.  

 

[NorrisK]

I'll just sit here and wait until the things goes back to normal. Don't you?

No. I don't. I'm pretty sure this is the new normal.

Looking at the 7-day average of market cap, we are about to hit that measure's high water mark. (Currently at ~$10.2B USD and climbing fast, was only larger than this for less than ten days in Nov-Dec 2013, with max of ~$10.9B USD on 2013 Dec 12 - https://blockchain.info/charts/market-cap?timespan=all&daysAverageString=7) With this significant event coming to pass, there will be renewed interest in the popular press. With renewed interest comes an influx of new users. With an influx of new users comes additional transactions. All competing for the same limited block space.

Many will turn away in derision when The New Magic Internet Money does not seem to deliver on its promises of fast & near free. But some will suck it up and deal. Net: more usage of the blockchain. More delays in getting your transactions processed. More fees per transaction. And more stuck transactions in an ever-increasing backlog.

While all this is unfortunate, what really sucks is the forestalling of The Wave Of Adoption That Could Have Been, were it not be for a stupid maxblocksize limit.

I still feel that for the general public to regain interstest it doesn't need to pass the ath marketcap, but instead it needs to pass the ath per bitcoin again.

Everybody has the 1000+ coins in memory, and saying it passed the peak at 800+ is not really understandable to people that know nothing about bitcoin.

[deisik]

The miners are doing everything they can, but that's clearly not enough.
Check this one:

https://btc.com/000000000000000002e4403e2babdccfe89704277ea48e1ab3ed5957cdfb1f24

That block contains 2,469 transactions (is this the new record?), and it's nearly touching the 1MB block size limit at 998,085 Bytes

You should not look at only one block to make any definitive conclusion (as to whether the miners are actually doing everything they can). I can just as well say that some miners are doing the best what they can while the rest of them (which are in majority, by the way) are doing essentially nothing. In short, it is only around 144 new blocks found daily, so could anyone post exact data as to the actual sizes of the blocks mined for the last two days (or since when the jam has started)?

That would most likely close this question

[Lauda]

Could it be that fees are too low for some of these and they are taking a long time. It could be that it just happens to be happening all at one time by coincidence or that miners are refusing to confirm them collectively.

Yeah, it could be. But probably is not. How close to maximum theoretical capacity do you think is realistic?

I call it a bitcoin fail, it just simply cannot scale to the current usage. Thanks.

*Current usage*? Not really. The combination used in the attack is actually quite smart:
1) Use a good amount of quantity and slowly increase over the course of 2 days.
2) Use unusually large transactions with a lot of input scripts. These transactions tend to be larger e.g. 1kb. The effect that this does is that miners tend to mine more blocks with less transactions (1k or lower). As a result the ever growing backlog becomes much worse than it is.
You can see some dormant addresses that suddenly created over 1 thousand (multisignature transactions) over the course of 2 days each.

[deisik]

I paid almost 0.0003 BTC (0,2112 EURO) as fee for a small transaction and I didn't get any confirmation since almost 3 hours already, like this ain't funny anymore

fee of bank (per month)?
fee of mastercard/visa circuit?
fee of the POS leasing (per month)?
fee of the global transaction per year (at the bank)?

fee of bank (per month)? None
fee of mastercard/visa circuit? None
fee of the POS leasing (per month)? Don't know what it is
fee of the global transaction per year (at the bank)? None

I get a 5% cashback for all supermarket purchases made with the debit card issued by the bank that I use, and 1% for all other purchases (up to a certain limit which I never come close to). All wire transfers are free of charge (with no limits), all card-to-card transfers are also free of charge (though the total amount is limited per month)...

Obviously, not all banks are born equal

[Sithara007]

The situation is worsening. Yesterday the number was around 32,000. Now it is close to 58,000. Just 1,816 transactions got confirmed in Block no.440322 (ViaBTC).

https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions

There is no point in requesting the users to hold back their transactions. Because most of the transactions are from margin traders and gamblers.

[jay8291]

i Sent funds from Cryptopia & Bittrex to Poloniex. Got 2 Confirmations within 10 minutes of transaction...

[mrkevio]

i Sent funds from Cryptopia & Bittrex to Poloniex. Got 2 Confirmations within 10 minutes of transaction...

But that depends on the fee you're going to send. For example if I'm going to send a transaction of 0.05BTC with 10k satoshis fee, it's going to get confirmed after a pretty long time (about one day). You have to be careful, if you need to pay something pretty fast then you will want to use the fee recommended by your wallet.

[NeuroticFish]

Yeah, kiklo is a well known altcoin troll. Almost all of the professional anti-SegWit trolls and UnlimitedCoin worshippers are heavily active in the altcoin world. That's not surprising, because all they hope is to destabilize Bitcoin for that their altcoins become more valuable.

I am also heavily active in the altcoin world. I also hope that my few altcoins will become much more valuable.
But it's a big difference in math. I hope that Bitcoin will continue to grow and my altcoins to also grow vs Bitcoin.
So my math tells: if Bitcoin reaches $2000 and [insert altcoin name here] reaches 0.1BTC I am a happy hippo already.

There's no point trolling Bitcoin. Although slower than I'd wish, Bitcoin evolves and all the altcoins with "Bitcoin" in the name (under pretexts that they are the evolution Bitcoin needs) are only silly attempts to gain marketing, not thinking that they lose more than they gain with that.

Obviously, not all banks are born equal

I thought that my bank is good. Yours is even better!
(In my case though I have to get over a certain amount of money in that account each month, else I have to start paying for their services.)

Just Bitcoin is asset, not money. If you think like that the comparison with banks don't hold so well anymore (imho) and then you can also understand that the transactions are better safe than super fast.
(If you want super fast you either pay a fat fee, either turn to faster coins).

There is no point in requesting the users to hold back their transactions. Because most of the transactions are from margin traders and gamblers.

I wish to see a service/website that tells which sites / services have the bigger percents of transactions.
I somehow tend to believe that on-chain gambling is too expensive to worth it and the "normal" gambling sites should not have that many deposits and withdrawals in so small amounts of time.
But I also don't have a good explanation for this wave of transactions so my math may have a glitch somewhere...

[CraigWrightBTC]

Wow ,almost 30,000 unconfirmed trans now

Are the miners sleeping? LOL

I think more than 30.000 unconfirmed transaction, just for today about 40.000 unconfirmed transaction http://www.newsbtc.com/2016/11/23/spamming-continues-on-bitcoin-network-delays-transactions/ and it is more growing up, it is bad spamming on bitcoin network, i think the miners are still mining with sleeply.  

[Pursuer]

The situation is worsening. Yesterday the number was around 32,000. Now it is close to 58,000. Just 1,816 transactions got confirmed in Block no.440322 (ViaBTC).

https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions

you should also take a look at the size of the transactions in total aka mempool size.
https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-size

because the restrictive factor is not the "number of transactions" but the size of them because of the 1 MB limit of blocks.

There is no point in requesting the users to hold back their transactions. Because most of the transactions are from margin traders and gamblers.

don't pay much attention to that topic, it was a bad joke from someone who was advertising an altcoin.

[Sithara007]

Its probably people just trying to spam with network with minuscule transactions with 0 fees, Itll clear up eventually.

False. Please do research before posting or not not post at all.


Full information can be found here.

In the website which you had posted above, the following information is given:

The fastest and cheapest transaction fee is currently 100 satoshis/byte, shown in green at the top. For the median transaction size of 226 bytes, this results in a fee of 22,600 satoshis (0.15$).

That means that transactions which paid at least BTC0.0002 in fee are getting confirmed without much delay (provided that their size is more or less equal to the median transaction size). The delay is mostly happening to those who paid a lower tx fee.