Egad. 81,000 + Transactions Unconfirmed. Again. Ugh!

[piramida]

If Bitcoin price goes high enough, I bet ya someone will take advantage of new markets which involves instant transfer services for cheaper fees. It would be ironic for BTC.

So, you seem quite sure that people don't care about security of the network and instead always select the cheaper option. I can accept that bet, how much you want to wager?

[CyberKuro]

...

As I write there is another huge number of transactions in limbo.

Time to solve this problem, guys (lead developers).  Shape-up and fix this.

I grow somewhat disenchanted w/ BTC, even w/ paying higher fee (when I can) or w/ acceleration.

This problem cannot be solved as long as we don't have bigger block size I think, too many transaction in every second and miners can't afford all of them. I don't know how the devs team going to solve this problem as they still argue each other. Now we have 37866 unconfirmed transaction and still increasing. It makes us have to wait longer than before and pay more fee in every transaction.

[piramida]

I don't know how the devs team going to solve this problem as they still argue each other.

Yeah, you get this impression from reading this forum Fact is, there is almost no argument on scaling between bitcoin developers, path is quite clear. The path is however blocked by some businessmen who do not agree with it.They have neither expertise nor a clear understanding, they just have profit in mind and the proposed solution would kill their future profit. So they invent one stumbling block after another - classic/xt/bu - just to not allow bitcoin to progress to infinite scalability.

But bitcoin will shake them off, like all the other small obstacles like China and government regulation. Just takes time.

[jonald_fyookball]

 Fact is, there is almost no argument on scaling between bitcoin developers, path is quite clear.  

Lol. Obviously this is false.

Many prominent developers have long advocated for a simple
blocksize increase including Gavin Andressen, Mike Hearn, Jeff Garzik, and Satoshi Nakamoto.

Even core claimed "lack of consensus" as their reason why changes haven't been made.
You simply cannot claim there is no controversy with any shred of credibility.

[Wind_FURY]

Segwit is just a first aid to this problem, Segwit is not really the solution. They must think of the new way and it must be really fast.
This is the main problem of bitcoin that must be answered. If these is not answered fast then there will come a time that problems will be more and more complicating emerging from the past problems.

That is what the people from Bitcoin Unlimited will tell you. The real solution is for Bitcoin to have a scalable network working on top of it. Bitcoin itself will still be useful as a settlement layer. Please also be aware that politics and the quest for control is a key factor on why many do not want to activate Segwit.

Didn't we stumpled upon Bitcoin to get away from intermediate layers? Those additional layers tend to held open their hands for some feeees. That nickle'n'dime concept.

No. I became interested in Bitcoin because it is a decentralized, censorship resistant, value transfer network. I do not know what you mean about intermediate layers but the Lightning Network can be seen as a leverage against the greedy miners.

A successfull cyber currency could handle bazillions of transfers for nuthin'
Everything below that line isn't exactly a revolution. Bitcoin has to change, to reach these promises.

For a Legendary you still have not realized how inefficient and slow consensus is in Bitcoin. Before you say something stupid like "bazillions of transfers for nuthin" you should realize what you need for that is a centralized service.

[scambust]

If Bitcoin price goes high enough, I bet ya someone will take advantage of new markets which involves instant transfer services for cheaper fees. It would be ironic for BTC.

So, you seem quite sure that people don't care about security of the network and instead always select the cheaper option. I can accept that bet, how much you want to wager?

Simple fact: Imagine this person who JUST recently heard about bitcoin where its value is derived from people who buy it (currently $1,100), no banks, no government, no central entity involved. And its transferable ONLINE. Wow! Amazing!

But then it confirms in one to two days because of congestion.. And then he has to pay higher fees to get in front of a queue that will continually try to outbid one another. What do you think he'll do? Back to bank/ATM/creditcards/Paypal...

For those who actually use bitcoin on a regular basis, these will not do. If some central entity promises they will take care of your balance in any online crypto service for a smaller fee, that's a big demand already caused by the backlog. For example, Coinbase and Coinbase-connected businesses and services.

[Vaccomundus]

If Bitcoin price goes high enough, I bet ya someone will take advantage of new markets which involves instant transfer services for cheaper fees. It would be ironic for BTC.

So, you seem quite sure that people don't care about security of the network and instead always select the cheaper option. I can accept that bet, how much you want to wager?

is cheaper fee related to security? since when? just related to miners being greedy to me

[e-coinomist]

is cheaper fee related to security? since when? just related to miners being greedy to me

Highest fees will not make investor style people filthy rich as an automatism. Most if not all of them are totally neglecting that they aren't pool operators.
Users that are operating a just so tiniest amount of negligible hashrate tend to fall for a similar illusion. Dreaming of ROI, even.

But mass adopter's attention will be drawn away from even considering Bitcoin if they get a glance onto horrenduous costs for using it.
And we know Metcalfe's law and the network effects that give value to any digital currency. Most of the coins are lacking on that, never gaining any potential. Bitcoin has it as a first mover, but seems willing to risk it's foundations.

[OROBTC]

...

88,000 + now.  I have not checked to see what fees now have to be to get a confirmation in 1 - 2 blocks.

I read earlier in this thread that rising BTC price correlates with increasing activity and longer confirmation times.  Today's unconfirmeds would tend to be more evidence of just that.

I'll just take a break from BTC activity until the number of unconfirmeds comes down.

[lurker10]

...

88,000 + now.  I have not checked to see what fees now have to be to get a confirmation in 1 - 2 blocks.

I read earlier in this thread that rising BTC price correlates with increasing activity and longer confirmation times.  Today's unconfirmeds would tend to be more evidence of just that.

I'll just take a break from BTC activity until the number of unconfirmeds comes down.

200 sat/B should get a conf in the first 1-2 blocks, this is about 0.00045 BTC for a small 225 byte tx.

[googlebtc]

still the same as before we still get the same problem, namely the queue waiting for confirmation of transactions like this https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions
I think it needs to prevent this problem not to happen again, my expectations bitcoin transactions really makes the other person is really convenient to use at least get a confirmation faster pace in the previous year

[BitHodler]

still the same as before we still get the same problem, namely the queue waiting for confirmation of transactions like this https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions
I think it needs to prevent this problem not to happen again, my expectations bitcoin transactions really makes the other person is really convenient to use at least get a confirmation faster pace in the previous year

Situation won't change as long as the block size is still sitting at 1MB. I won't throw with names, but it's a consistent spam attack that most likely 1 person with deep pockets is running.

If we have let's say 2MB blocks, then this person will still be able to spam the network, but it would cost him much more money to reach the same level of effect.

For now I wouldn't focus too much on seeing this spam attack become less active as the person behind this attack can keep this up for quite a long time.

It's either patience that you need if you stick to relative low fees, or add a hefty fee to get your transaction confirmed within 2 blocks. There is not much more that you can do, really.

[paul gatt]

I'm really upset because of this. it continually happens, need to take any measures that solve it, if not, we need to change the technology platform, we need something quick and easy, and of course a cheaper fee. Current, Bitcoin is priced too high, so people use a smaller fee, this has slowed the transaction and makes it clogged, do not let this keep happening. they, the leaders blockchain need solutions

[LoyceV]

If we have let's say 2MB blocks, then this person will still be able to spam the network, but it would cost him much more money to reach the same level of effect.

I often read the statement that many transactions are caused by a "spam attack", but I haven't seen any evidence for it.
Fees are now $2000 to $3500 per block. About $15,000 per hour, or more than $2 million per week. Even if only a fraction of this is caused by "spam", that would mean someone is spending millions of dollars on it. I find it hard to believe someone is making transactions just to spam the network.

[Carlton Banks]

I find it hard to believe someone is making transactions just to spam the network.

You don't know much about the politics of money then.


The Central Banks in particular have a huge amount to gain from causing as much turmoil in the Bitcoin ecosystem as possible, and millions of $ is not much to the people who magic the actual money supply into existence

[LoyceV]

I find it hard to believe someone is making transactions just to spam the network.

You don't know much about the politics of money then.


The Central Banks in particular have a huge amount to gain from causing as much turmoil in the Bitcoin ecosystem as possible, and millions of $ is not much to the people who magic the actual money supply into existence

I know a thing or 2 about Central Banks. I see what you're going at, but I'd like to see some evidence showing Central Banks are buying Bitcoins just to make spam-transactions.
And even if it's true, wouldn't that be all the more reason to increase block size? Let them pump more fiat into Bitcoin for whatever agenda they have.

[BitHodler]

LoyceV, Lauda posted a long list of addresses a few days ago that are heavily contributing to the spam attack everyone seems to be suffering from.

If you thoroughly browse through all these addresses and look at how many nonsense transactions they are sending out, you'll probably understand that this is in fact a spam attack.

Thread ~ https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1776143.0

[jonald_fyookball]

LoyceV, Lauda posted a long list of addresses a few days ago that are heavily contributing to the spam attack everyone seems to be suffering from.

If you thoroughly browse through all these addresses and look at how many nonsense transactions they are sending out, you'll probably understand that this is in fact a spam attack.

Thread ~ https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1776143.0

there's another thread saying these 'komodo' addresses have a legit purpose, it is not intentional spam.

could it be the obvious truth:  blocks have been nearing the 1 mb capacity for a long time
(just like Gavin warned) and now were seeing true network congestion more and more?

Could it just maybe be true?

[Carlton Banks]

I find it hard to believe someone is making transactions just to spam the network.

You don't know much about the politics of money then.


The Central Banks in particular have a huge amount to gain from causing as much turmoil in the Bitcoin ecosystem as possible, and millions of $ is not much to the people who magic the actual money supply into existence

I know a thing or 2 about Central Banks. I see what you're going at, but I'd like to see some evidence showing Central Banks are buying Bitcoins just to make spam-transactions.
And even if it's true, wouldn't that be all the more reason to increase block size? Let them pump more fiat into Bitcoin for whatever agenda they have.

Central Banks would only take such actions with the utmost secrecy, you'd find out only if they announced it.

Money has an enormous psychological component attached to it's value, if evidence emerged that Central Banks were mining or buying BTC to attack it, the fact that they felt so threatened by Bitcoin would affect the market's perception of the value of the fiat currencies issued by them. Precisely not what the fiat issuers want.

[ReLieD]

I have just sent some bitcoin with 20,000 satoshi as fee for my 191 bytes transaction and it got confirmed in first block. This fee is still low when moving large amount of bitcoin so increasing fee during situation like this is enough to get it through.

However this block size issue will encourage people to use other alts for sure.

It is obvious that the more fees you pay the more quicker you transactions will get confirmed.
But I never experience this problem even though I just give the recommended fees .
And even though I give little less fees than recommend it takes max to max 3 to 4 hrs to confirm.
But as so many of you are complaining this problem might be real.
It's just because there might be lot of load on the server as many people keep making transactions with bitcoins.