69,000 (69K) Unconfirmed Transactions! ....WTF...???

[Wind_FURY]

Die waiting for segwit or use Dash instant transactions, top 3 at coinmarket now:

https://coinmarketcap.com

Stop promoting the shitcoin everywhere. It is a clear pyramid scheme that is dying.

You cannot blame him. It is in a bubble that is ready to pop anytime. He is desperate for greater fools to enter the fray so he could sell his bags to them. This is nothing new in the forum.

I happen to be both a bitcoin investor and also someone that actually uses Bitcoin (to pay employees via remittances).

This past week was the first time one of my employees actually complained to me about the payment because it
took them 2 days to get their bitcoins through their bank processor to their bank.  

If this network congestion isn't solved soon AND I find myself able to use an alternative cryptocurrency (assuming its cheaper than paypal),
why wouldn't I do so?  Hint: I will.

And if that happens, I would seriously consider liquidating a large portion of my bitcoin investment as
well, based on the conclusion that Bitcoin's utility has been damaged while at the same time other
competitors offer more value.

Food for thought.

That would suck for Bitcoin if thousands of other users are starting to think of the same thing. The question now here is what coin are you willing to use to pay your employees? Of all the options I can only LTC as the obvious choice unless you are going to use XMR or a scamcoin like Dash.

[Lauda]

That would suck for Bitcoin if thousands of other users are starting to think of the same thing.

Not really.

The question now here is what coin are you willing to use to pay your employees? Of all the options I can only LTC as the obvious choice unless you are going to use XMR or a scamcoin like Dash.

Every single altcoin will face the same issues. It looks like people can't grasp the reality that fleeing to an altcoin != solution. It equals to shifting the problem from location A to location B. The scamcoins like ETH, Dash, et. al are another story.

[Amph]

Looks like btc is being DDOS'ed with $0.05 and $0.01 transactions.

Maybe someone's trying to lower the price so they can buy cheaper btc before the ETF announcement on the 11th.

how is ddosing is going to lower the price, if the fee on average are lower now than before, i don't think the market even care about this, in fact traders can trade without worry about fee, on the exchange

there are no fee on the exchange for bitcoin, and this is another reason to keep your fund there, with this high cost for the fee you would kill your tiny % of daily profit, by depositing and withdrawing every time

[Lauda]

Looks like btc is being DDOS'ed with $0.05 and $0.01 transactions.

Maybe someone's trying to lower the price so they can buy cheaper btc before the ETF announcement on the 11th.

how is ddosing is going to lower the price, if the fee on average are lower now than before, i don't think the market even care about this, in fact traders can trade without worry about fee, on the exchange

This is what you call "lower now than before"? Fees are up to about 300% since Q4 2016 in USD.
Source: https://bitcoinfees.info/
Alternative: https://twitter.com/nikzh/status/838341340920434688/photo/1

[Amph]

Looks like btc is being DDOS'ed with $0.05 and $0.01 transactions.

Maybe someone's trying to lower the price so they can buy cheaper btc before the ETF announcement on the 11th.

how is ddosing is going to lower the price, if the fee on average are lower now than before, i don't think the market even care about this, in fact traders can trade without worry about fee, on the exchange

This is what you call "lower now than before"? Fees are up to about 300% since Q4 2016 in USD.
Source: https://bitcoinfees.info/
Alternative: https://twitter.com/nikzh/status/838341340920434688/photo/1

with before i mean this week not a year ago, the peak was 50k now it's again 45k

not to mention that the average transaction fee is based also on the average transaction size, it doesn't necessarely mean that the fee itself is increased, but that there are more big transaction...

[Lauda]

with before i mean this week not a year ago, the peak was 50k now it's again 45k

Peak mempool size != peak average fee. Stop comparing apples and oranges. While there is correlation between them, a record mempool size does not need to imply a record average fee-rate.

[Doms]

I just sent 0.02 a while ago and the fee was almost a dollar. The transaction did not take too long to be confirmed actually and was pleasantly surprised that it got through sooner than I expected. Now that the fees are increasing, I think I'll just keep my transactions to a minimum and hold for a while to see if there will be changes in the fees in the coming months because at the rate things are going, the fees are just going to continue to rise due to the increasing number of transactions we see everyday.

[Wind_FURY]

That would suck for Bitcoin if thousands of other users are starting to think of the same thing.

Not really.

The question now here is what coin are you willing to use to pay your employees? Of all the options I can only LTC as the obvious choice unless you are going to use XMR or a scamcoin like Dash.

Every single altcoin will face the same issues. It looks like people can't grasp the reality that fleeing to an altcoin != solution. It equals to shifting the problem from location A to location B. The scamcoins like ETH, Dash, et. al are another story.

You are right! The other coins will also have to face the same problems to a certain extent. I also think jonald_fyookball is only bluffing when he said he wants to relinquish himself from all his Bitcoins. But if not then he is welcome to let go if he wants. Good luck to him.

[rajasumi3]

Dude dont worry so much about unconfirmed transactions.it sometimes happen that due to heavy traffic it does not get it done and its the main disadvantage of using bitcoins .

[mobnepal]

Temporary solution is to use enough fees on transactions and on doing micro transactions try to send all in one transaction.

Long term solution is to build support for segwit and get it activated.

[kiklo]

Temporary solution is to use enough fees on transactions and on doing micro transactions try to send all in one transaction.

Long term solution is to build support for segwit and get it activated.

Long Term Solution is to adopt Bitcoin Unlimited.

Segwit is DOA, can't you people do math, it will never reach 95%.

8 MB Blocks                   7.5% =>   100%- 7.5% =  92.5%   SEGWIT FAIL
or
Bitcoin Unlimited          18.3% =>   100%-18.3% =  81.7%   SEGWIT FAIL

Combined                    25.8%  =>   100%-25.8% = 74.2%   SEGWIT FAIL

Segwit has failed, Game Over it will never reach 95%.

Only Short Term Solutions are :

Yes the reason is BTC is Broken, because the BTC core Devs will not release a Blocksize increase or sign off on BTC unlimited.
Either of which would fix the transactions problems.

In the mean time all the users can do is the following:

1. Always check the unconfirmed transactions Queue 1st
https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions

2. If the unconfirmed transactions are below 12,000, go ahead and send BTC
    If the unconfirmed transactions are above 12,000, Send an Alt instead like LTC, Dash , or ETH

3. If for some reason you don't want to send a Faster & Cheaper Alt,
    Then Pay an Insanely High Transaction Fee to Send BTC

Those are your only options.

 

[Lauda]

I just sent 0.02 a while ago and the fee was almost a dollar. The transaction did not take too long to be confirmed actually and was pleasantly surprised that it got through sooner than I expected.

That doesn't tell us anything really. The important metric is the used/required fee-rate in satoshis/byte.

Now that the fees are increasing, I think I'll just keep my transactions to a minimum and hold for a while to see if there will be changes in the fees in the coming months because at the rate things are going, the fees are just going to continue to rise due to the increasing number of transactions we see everyday.

The demand is just so big that the network can't handle it. This didn't affect the frequency of my transacting although you technically also help with the congestion by minimizing TXs during such times.

Every single altcoin will face the same issues. It looks like people can't grasp the reality that fleeing to an altcoin != solution. It equals to shifting the problem from location A to location B. The scamcoins like ETH, Dash, et. al are another story.

You are right! The other coins will also have to face the same problems to a certain extent.

Actually, coins like ETH and XMR will face even bigger scalability issues. I think the case is the same for Dash, but I need to look into that first.

Dude dont worry so much about unconfirmed transactions.it sometimes happen that due to heavy traffic it does not get it done and its the main disadvantage of using bitcoins .

Stop shitposting.

Long Term Solution is to adopt Bitcoin Unlimited.

That is not a solution of any kind. Neither short nor long term. Since when did you sell yourself to become a BU shill?

[jonald_fyookball]

Long Term Solution is to adopt Bitcoin Unlimited.

That is not a solution of any kind. Neither short nor long term. Since when did you sell yourself to become a BU shill?

Proof by assertion, argument from repetition, ad hominem...

[Lauda]

Long Term Solution is to adopt Bitcoin Unlimited.

That is not a solution of any kind. Neither short nor long term. Since when did you sell yourself to become a BU shill?

Proof by assertion, argument from repetition, ad hominem...

You only need to use your brain to understand why it won't work. No evidence is required whatsoever. Even if we disregard all the dangers that it provides, huge block size increases inevitably lead to centralization of nodes. Do you want Bitcoin to be primarily run by companies in data centers? Oh right, that is exactly what you want..  

[jonald_fyookball]

Long Term Solution is to adopt Bitcoin Unlimited.

That is not a solution of any kind. Neither short nor long term. Since when did you sell yourself to become a BU shill?

Proof by assertion, argument from repetition, ad hominem...

You only need to use your brain to understand why it won't work. No evidence is required whatsoever. Even if we disregard all the dangers that it provides, huge block size increases inevitably lead to centralization of nodes. Do you want Bitcoin to be primarily run by companies in data centers? Oh right, that is exactly what you want..  

Apparently one of us has the the understanding and the intellectual honesty to explain the trade offs between small and large blocks, and one of us does not. 

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1803307.msg18064768#msg18064768

[Lauda]

Apparently one of us has the the understanding and the intellectual honesty to explain the trade offs between small and large blocks, and one of us does not.  

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1803307.msg18064768#msg18064768

Nonsense; you're just appealing to an authority aka 'satoshi'. Satoshi was a great person/group, but in no way was he able to predict the best way for the future of his project. The fact that you are completely closed-minded about the alternative options tells me more than enough. So far, you've proven to be wrong about your assertion.
The whole situation is a mess, and I'll call out anyone who is enclosed with a tight opinion. There are a lot of different "camps":
1) BU only.
2) Core only.
3) Soft-fork only.
4) Hard-fork only.
5) Only block-size increase.
6) Only block-size decrease.
7) No hard-fork at any cost.
8.) Other?
At this point, I'm not sure which camp is worse.

[jonald_fyookball]

I can certainly agree its a mess.
 
Btw, BU isn't mutually exclusive with other scaling solutions.  I'm primarily a fan of it because
I think giving the power to miners to have an emergent consensus is better
than the centralized top down control of an entrenched group of core developers,
which is what I perceive the current reality to be.

(Doubly so now that many of that group are now arguably 'corporatized'.)

But I'm being repetitive myself now.

Point is, there are merits to many sides of the debate.   No need for fanaticism
from any of us, right?

[Lauda]

Btw, BU isn't mutually exclusive with other scaling solutions.

So why not implement Segwit into it and signal for it? Please don't start with the pseudo knowledge that Segwit HF is much cleaner than Segwit SF.

I'm primarily a fan of it because
I think giving the power to miners to have an emergent consensus is better
than the centralized top down control of an entrenched group of core developers,
which is what I perceive the current reality to be.

In order for one to become a miner, all he/she has to do is purchase mining devices. This requires practically zero knowledge about Bitcoin and the underlying protocol. Why exactly would you give more power to those with arguably very limited knowledge?

(Doubly so now that many of that group are now arguably 'corporatized'.)

Please no conspiracy theories.

[kiklo]

Long Term Solution is to adopt Bitcoin Unlimited.

That is not a solution of any kind. Neither short nor long term. Since when did you sell yourself to become a BU shill?

Solutions to the transactions issue.

1.  Increase Blocksize  (BU does that.) (BTC Core could release a blocksize increase without segwit but they don't.)

2.  Faster Blockspeed  (Also would work, but requires modifying block rewards to keep the same halving dates.)

Personally BU offers a workable solution so I mention them.

Since you claim to know alot about shills, how much are you being paid to shill segwit?  


 


FYI:
Soft forks are a waste of time, look at segwit , a year before some of you will admit it has failed.
If segwit was a hard fork , you would have had to admit segwit was a failure last year and then implemented another solution ,
larger blocksize or faster blockspeed already and this ongoing discussion of confused individuals would have lasted less than a month.

[Lauda]

Solutions to the transactions issue.

1.  Increase Blocksize  (BU does that.) (BTC Core could release a blocksize increase without segwit but they don't.)

Which is what Segwit essentially does as a side-effect, among other things. Why are you not promoting both solutions if you genuinely *think* increasing the block size is the right one?

Since you claim to know alot about shills, how much are you being paid to shill segwit?  

Not this bullshit again by the Zeti shitcoin knight.