wow ,almost 30,000 unconfirmed trans

[Holliday]

what could be the reason behind those sudden spike?

That's called spamming in order to push an agenda.

[deisik]

If we exclude a conspiracy theory involving Chinese miners (or just some exceptionally greedy miners, for that matter) deliberately ignoring a lot of transactions, say, with the aim of extorting higher fees and stick to another conspiracy theory instead, it could be claimed that someone had been flooding or spamming the Bitcoin network with high enough fees to crowd out the genuine transactions with typical or recommended fees. That is, trying to bring the network down...

Why would they want to do that is another question, though

It is an interesting theory, although I am not too sure about it. Spamming the network requires a lot of funds and resources. Who is having that sort of funds with them? Bankers? But I have to say that their attempts have failed miserably. The Bitcoin exchange rates are stable as of now, and the number of unconfirmed transactions are declining.

I don't really think that it would require a lot of resources and funds, say, for an average banker. People who strongly oppose related conspiracy theories say that the blocks are already filled up to the hilt. Okay, let's assume that their claims have at least some substance in them. Given that around 250k transactions are processed daily on average and that this number is pretty close to the current processing capacity of the Bitcoin network (due to the block size limit), it effectively means that to overwhelm the network and crowd out the bulk of transactions the miscreant would have to add only around 50k transactions with, say, 50k satoshi of fees on a daily basis...

And that would cost him 50000*0.0005=25 bitcoins, or around 18,000 dollars, or exactly two mining rewards

[Carlton Banks]

Which would you prefer to do? Make them rearrange their lives to accommodate bitcoin by purchasing a dedicated bitcoin desktop or make Bitcoin the only thing on their laptop and run only a client with the prune=<500> switch set?  Both options are not only ridiculous but will not happen because no one will do it when they can just use ApplePay or a debit card instead.

Hmmmm, you're not really into Bitcoin, are you?

I myself indulge in all these "ridiculous" options, what I do is I check what kind of performance the hardware will need, then take some money, then spend it on the appropriate computer hardware. You seem to be claiming that today's Windows & Word low spec laptops can't handle it. Neither could yesterday's.

So what are you highlighting, other than nothing?

[Holliday]

Which would you prefer to do? Make them rearrange their lives to accommodate bitcoin by purchasing a dedicated bitcoin desktop or make Bitcoin the only thing on their laptop and run only a client with the prune=<500> switch set?  Both options are not only ridiculous but will not happen because no one will do it when they can just use ApplePay or a debit card instead.

Hmmmm, you're not really into Bitcoin, are you?

I myself indulge in all these "ridiculous" options, what I do is I check what kind of performance the hardware will need, then take some money, then spend it on the appropriate computer hardware. You seem to be claiming that today's Windows & Word low spec laptops can't handle it. Neither could yesterday's.

So what are you highlighting, other than nothing?

He loves to play devil's advocate to the point where I no longer know if he is playing anymore!

[kiklo]

Which would you prefer to do? Make them rearrange their lives to accommodate bitcoin by purchasing a dedicated bitcoin desktop or make Bitcoin the only thing on their laptop and run only a client with the prune=<500> switch set?  Both options are not only ridiculous but will not happen because no one will do it when they can just use ApplePay or a debit card instead.

Hmmmm, you're not really into Bitcoin, are you?

I myself indulge in all these "ridiculous" options, what I do is I check what kind of performance the hardware will need, then take some money, then spend it on the appropriate computer hardware. You seem to be claiming that today's Windows & Word low spec laptops can't handle it. Neither could yesterday's.

So what are you highlighting, other than nothing?

He loves to play devil's advocate to the point where I no longer know if he is playing anymore!

LOL, I thought he was just being an asshat.  

 

FYI:
He could have just said the laptop people could get a 2TB USB to store the blockchain.
But I won't download the BTC blockchain and I am using a Desktop with multiple TB in it.
No point, since BTC is PoW instead of PoS, there is 0 advantage for me.

[QuestionAuthority]

How can we increase adoption, make Bitcoin mainstream, and make it a one world currency so that no one in the world can actually spend any money. LOL

To the moon. ROFL

first make all users download the blockchain ( this is very important )
then you make them send their btc to a LN node
then they can timelock these bitcoins and open channels
then they can buy 30,000 separate cam shows and only pay 12$ in TX fee
they have to do this before their time lock expires and closes the channel ofc...

*image*
thats how its done.

The problem with that theory is that people don't like to be first and they want to see things work perfectly before they try them.

No one other than cultist bitcoiners will ever download the entire Blockchain. Hell, even I won't ever do it again. I lost my copy of the entire chain a little over a year ago, waited two days for it to never catch up and quit. I'm an SPV kind of guy forever after that. Pruning mode in the new clients is a joke and if you want to revert to a full node you need to redownload the whole thing again.

What are you going to do about laptop people? Over half of the people I know only own a laptop, believing it stupid to have both a desktop and a laptop when the laptop does everything they want to do. Most, if not all, of these "laptopers" have less than a 500gb SSD drive. Which would you prefer to do? Make them rearrange their lives to accommodate bitcoin by purchasing a dedicated bitcoin desktop or make Bitcoin the only thing on their laptop and run only a client with the prune=<500> switch set?  Both options are not only ridiculous but will not happen because no one will do it when they can just use ApplePay or a debit card instead.

Really big blocks - when is that happening again?

For those that really didn't understand what I'm getting at:

Fix the fucking thing so it's capable of being used by more than a few hardcore bitcoiners worldwide and stop making excuses for its problems. Recognizing a problem is the first step toward a solution.

No one ever sits back and looks at what these average people would need to do to use Bitcoin or if they would be willing to do it at all. Currently, most wouldn't because they're too lazy.


One single stadium holding 1/3 the number of daily Bitcoin transactions worldwide. After nearly seven years that's a problem.

BTW: Why is Bitcoin still in beta after seven years? Most companies would go broke if they waited this long.

[Carlton Banks]

lol @ "fix the fucking thing"

What's stopping you from coming up with a fix?



The real issue here is that fixes to the scalability of Bitcoin have been in the works for years now, and we're finally getting to the point where something concrete is about to happen (with lots of groundwork already done).


In other words, the issue is your ignorance, and your attribution of blame to anyone except yourself. If you don't know what the outline is for improving the Bitcoin network, and you do nothing but complain, it's no-one's fault but yours. Get reading.

[Meuh6879]

Can you imagine if we have more users of bitcoin? Will be a mess.

fees.

always fees.

think "fees" fees FEES FEES !

why do you want take transactions when it's funny ?
are you spend FIAT MONEY with your plastic card because is FUNNY ?
no.

When Bitcoin hit the mainstream (the real one ... with lost of bitcoins from a broken phone), the fees discourage the FUNNY usage and CUT the SPAM transactions.

That's why Lightning Network is important after the SegWit.


That's why increase of block size is useless ... but organize the inside of block, no.
segwit don't increase the size, it's increase the order inside the block.

[Capradina]

Can you imagine if we have more users of bitcoin? Will be a mess.

fees.

always fees.

think "fees" fees FEES FEES !

why do you want take transactions when it's funny ?
are you spend FIAT MONEY with your plastic card because is FUNNY ?
no.

When Bitcoin hit the mainstream (the real one ... with lost of bitcoins from a broken phone), the fees discourage the FUNNY usage and CUT the SPAM transactions.

That's why Lightning Network is important after the SegWit.


That's why increase of block size is useless ... but organize the inside of block, no.
segwit don't increase the size, it's increase the order inside the block.

Ahahahh, you have a joke that might only make them have a passion for looking a porn star for use in impingement their passions. This is something quite natural for all people in the world, many people are more concerned with his own without looking at what will happen if they do something, so it all depends on those who understand about the bitcoin and if everyone is already familiar with the workings of the bitcoin then I think will not happen the problem like this

[1enterthebtc]

Its not hurting the price of bitcoin! So in a matter of speaking it is not a problem (yet).

[Meuh6879]

then I think will not happen the problem like this

in Europa, every year ... we have days with NO CREDIT CARD POS working.
strangely, every time when we have rush on Christmas Sold.

strange ?
bitcoin solve this : when you emit, you have no chargeback ... and only mempool can delay this.

with credit card, you CAN NOT PAY the seller when network is OUT (on server side).

[QuestionAuthority]

lol @ "fix the fucking thing"

What's stopping you from coming up with a fix?

The real issue here is that fixes to the scalability of Bitcoin have been in the works for years now, and we're finally getting to the point where something concrete is about to happen (with lots of groundwork already done).

In other words, the issue is your ignorance, and your attribution of blame to anyone except yourself. If you don't know what the outline is for improving the Bitcoin network, and you do nothing but complain, it's no-one's fault but yours. Get reading.

I'm not the cheer leader or the preacher trying to get mass adoption. You fix the thing. I'm not a dev, I'm a user. Most people don't blame the customer for problems with their company (and that's what Bitcoin is competing with - companies). Be careful with that attitude because companies fail and customers move on.

Nothing is happening and just it's been in the works for years doesn't mean it's close.

[Carlton Banks]

I didn't blame anyone, that's your preserve


And "nothing happening" and "in the works" cannot both be simultaneously true. Troll harder.

[digaran]

Even with more nodes online we can sometimes see unconfirmed transactions, I don't know what exactly could cause this, aren't the low fees transactions still belong to the network?
I spent from blockchain.io with their selected fee but it took almost 5 hours while it says your transaction will confirm in 30 minutes.

[QuestionAuthority]

I didn't blame anyone, that's your preserve


And "nothing happening" and "in the works" cannot both be simultaneously true. Troll harder.

I think I've now met the only person here that's a bigger troll than Frankly.

[countryfree]

I'm still waiting for larger block sizes, or SegWit which could assuredly help on the short term

Segwit is an increase in the Blocksize. There is no "larger blocks, or Segwit"

Miners, and all BTC developers should understand that BTC's growth requires a growing infrastructure and includes a growing block size. Visa wasn't able to handle thousands of transactions every second some decades ago, but Visa has good managers and they anticipated the growth of the network. BTC needs to do the same. If I'm reasonable, I'd say the block size should be increased 50% each year.

What makes you think that blocksize changes are the only way to increase the transaction rate? If you were reasonable, you'd say that blocksize increases should be a last resort, and that anything else that improves the transaction rate should be implemented before that.

Yes, Segwit will effectively allow larger blocks, but that's not its main purpose, and the increase is marginal.

I want to be reasonable. If we could find a way to - I don't know how - reduce the size of transactions to fit more inside a block, I'd be happy, but if we want BTC's use to increase 10-fold, then 100-fold, we will have to increase the block size, and I don't see it as a big deal. The blockchain will be more than 100 Go in a few weeks, and nobody cares. Why should I care about the block size?

[Meuh6879]

because you don't have a full node ... ?
Power, storage ... and Bandwidth.

[Carlton Banks]

Yes, Segwit will effectively allow larger blocks, but that's not its main purpose, and the increase is marginal.

You argued for a 50% increase yearly. Segwit represents a 400% increase.

I want to be reasonable. If we could find a way to - I don't know how - reduce the size of transactions to fit more inside a block, I'd be happy, but if we want BTC's use to increase 10-fold, then 100-fold, we will have to increase the block size, and I don't see it as a big deal.

Those two statements are more or less contradicting one another, what if we could reduce the size of transactions by a factor of 10 or 100? Changing the signature scheme from ECDSA to the proposed Schnorr scheme wouldn't quite achieve that, but it's still an improvement. There could easily be other ways to reduce the size of each transaction also.

The simple fact is that on-chain scaling isn't possible for 7 billion humans, I forget the exact estimate, but we're looking at each block growing to 100 GB+ to accommodate that kind of growth. Even 1 GB blocksize is totally impractical, 1GB every 10 minutes isn't feasible for anything but the fastest fibre broadband. 100GB every ten minutes isn't possible for any domestic connection today.

[jbreher]

100GB every ten minutes isn't possible for any domestic connection today.

A blocksize of 100,000 times the current would enable 100,000 time more transactions than we are currently processing. Why the hell are you talking about this value in the context of what domestic connections today? Hyperventilate much?

[deisik]

100GB every ten minutes isn't possible for any domestic connection today.

A blocksize of 100,000 times the current would enable 100,000 time more transactions than we are currently processing. Why the hell are you talking about this value in the context of what domestic connections today? Hyperventilate much?

Right now we have 250k transactions processed daily, increasing that by 100k times will give us a figure around 25 billion transactions daily. If we divide this figure by the total number of humans currently living (about 7.5 billion), we will get only 3 transactions per person daily. Some people may make dozens of transactions on a daily basis, some only maybe a few a week, but on average we should get quite close to that number (perhaps, it should be somewhat greater than that). And note that I'm not counting business transactions altogether. Now show me a really existing networking technology, domestic or whatever, that would be able to transmit data at or over 100 gigabytes (bytes, not bits) per second farther than a few miles...

And we would need such speeds across continents, dedicated entirely for the support of Bitcoin infrastructure