60,000 Unconfirmed transaction and counting

[hankyulpark]

The intensive use of the network with pennyworth transactions can be described as "spam attack." At the other hand, the BTC networking was designed to handle everyday transactions (as paying for coffee)? IMO, when this point become clear (BTC will be a "VISA killer"), we will know the true "calling" of BTC. 

[1715279851]

1715279851

[1715279851]

1715279851

[1715279851]

1715279851

[1715279851]

1715279851

[Rajadurai]

i thing we need many blocks.or try to run bitcoin unlimited

[P4ndoraBox]

It is a rather common situation these days to have around 50k+ unconfirmed transactions.

When you are using a wallet, it is recommended to send about 0.0005 to 0.00065 btc to be sure that the transaction will be confirmed soon enough.

I made a bit of researchs, and a few cryptocurrencies like DGB and Litecoin for exemple, are testing the Segwit. If it become a success, it will be way more better than Bitcoin Unlimited, more transparent, and less decentralised.

[jonald_fyookball]

If you haven't read Alex.BTC's post on why its so easy to spam the blockchain now,
here it is:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1842146.msg18377507#msg18377507

[xIIImaL]

It is a rather common situation these days to have around 50k+ unconfirmed transactions.

When you are using a wallet, it is recommended to send about 0.0005 to 0.00065 btc to be sure that the transaction will be confirmed soon enough.

I made a bit of researchs, and a few cryptocurrencies like DGB and Litecoin for exemple, are testing the Segwit. If it become a success, it will be way more better than Bitcoin Unlimited, more transparent, and less decentralised.

I using blockchain.info wallet for more than 2 years and from the recent days. After blockchain people had meeting with the US commercial department. minimum fees has been increased to 0.0005 btc and confirmations every takes more 2+ hours to get completed.
These kind of altcoin araising to overtake the bitcoin. This is international political plan which moving bitcoin a side and over take the blockchain technology alone.

[franky1]

It is a rather common situation these days to have around 50k+ unconfirmed transactions.

When you are using a wallet, it is recommended to send about 0.0005 to 0.00065 btc to be sure that the transaction will be confirmed soon enough.

I made a bit of researchs, and a few cryptocurrencies like DGB and Litecoin for exemple, are testing the Segwit. If it become a success, it will be way more better than Bitcoin Unlimited, more transparent, and less decentralised.

I using blockchain.info wallet for more than 2 years and from the recent days. After blockchain people had meeting with the US commercial department. minimum fees has been increased to 0.0005 btc and confirmations every takes more 2+ hours to get completed.
These kind of altcoin araising to overtake the bitcoin. This is international political plan which moving bitcoin a side and over take the blockchain technology alone.

CORE removed the priority fee - no free tx if matured (meaning the every block/hourly spammer vs mature holder pay the same)
CORE removed the reactive fee - meaning it doesnt drop as soon as there is no demand
CORE added average fee - meaning it stays up based on the last 25+ block average fee
CORE stopped doing the usual lower the dust limit amount by a decimal when the price rises 10x (was 5000sat at $6 should be 50sat dust max)
CORE added more rules to reject relaying tx's unless certain fee is included

core literally removed all the coding things and just screamed "just pay more"..

so dont blame the pools.

[cryptoanarchist]

Not one person in this forum can deliver any reason why SegWit is necessary.

Why is it so important to these people to move the signature information in a block?

And skip the malleability argument because I've already seen plenty of easier ways to deal with that.

[Dr.Osh]

unconfirmation transactions occur again. Well, this may be due to increased transaction that occurs when the price of bitcoin. whereas the transaction fee is quite large, but still make it happen. Well, for the moment, I think I would not do the transaction.

[JGoRed]

What exactly is going on here?: https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions Is it possible that It's some kind of attack from miners to make people think that we need Bitcoin unlimited? Hash rate is no longer being displayed on the first page for some reasons so I can't tell exactly.

There’s another thread here basically saying the same thing, but this thread was created just after it, so I’m sure OP didn’t see it.

Anyway like I was saying there, in order to reach mass adoption, we need to fix this. Whether it be Segwit or BU or something else, we just need to face it: Bitcoin can’t hand this and it needs fixing now.

[topesis]

What exactly is going on here?: https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions Is it possible that It's some kind of attack from miners to make people think that we need Bitcoin unlimited? Hash rate is no longer being displayed on the first page for some reasons so I can't tell exactly.

Bitcoin Unlimited is not an option, it is just set up to delay SegWit and look for sympathy from the public, there is a reason why the miners don't trust them, if they do let them do the hard fork they've been clamoring for

[cryptoanarchist]

What exactly is going on here?: https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions Is it possible that It's some kind of attack from miners to make people think that we need Bitcoin unlimited? Hash rate is no longer being displayed on the first page for some reasons so I can't tell exactly.

Bitcoin Unlimited is not an option, it is just set up to delay SegWit and look for sympathy from the public, there is a reason why the miners don't trust them, if they do let them do the hard fork they've been clamoring for

LAST 1000 BLOCKS:

Bitcoin Unlimited blocks: 373  ( 37.3% )             
Bitcoin Classic blocks: 2  ( 0.2% )             
SegWit blocks: 275  ( 27.5% )

Wow...took like 5 seconds to fact check your bullshit.

[justdimin]

We need bigger blocks... lets all just run le BU

There are multiple solutions are available for avoiding bigger block hard fork. I believe segwit is having an ultimate intention for not having the erver untested hard forks. So, we should not rush for hard fork for the sake of better future of bitcoins.

If miners want to make us realize the need of bigger block size by pulling down their mining power, I am afraid it may may backfire themselves by making people switch over to altcoins.

[Quantus]

You can put a stop to this just support Sigwit. This spam is coming from the chines mining pools. Making blocks larger would just increase their profit margins. The larger blocks get the more advantage they gain.

[jonald_fyookball]

You can put a stop to this just support Sigwit. This spam is coming from the chines mining pools. Making blocks larger would just increase their profit margins. The larger blocks get the more advantage they gain.

Why do you support Segwit?  Your signature says you are for 1mb blocks.

If we are going to increase this , why not just increase it instead of implementing Segwit which is extremely complicated and has drawbacks?

[Quantus]

Just because something is complicated does not mean its not the best solution. Many people think bitcoin is already to complicated. Just because you can't understand how it works does not mean it won't work.
All solutions have drawbacks no path is perfect but this is the best path forward. But mostly because the Mining network is being destroyed by Chines mining pools who are using detrimental techniques that cause bloat to the blockchain and backlogs in the memory pool that slow down transactions.

Sigwit will put an end to ASIC boost, a technique that uses fake transactions (I say fake because they don't propagate across the network like other transactions they are created at the time the blocks are created for the sole purpose of increasing efficiency.)

[jonald_fyookball]

Just because something is complicated does not mean its not the best solution. Many people think bitcoin is already to complicated. Just because you can't understand how it works does not mean it won't work.

All true. (but irrelevant)
 

 But mostly because the Mining network is being destroyed by Chines mining pools who are using detrimental techniques that cause bloat to the blockchain and backlogs in the memory pool that slow down transactions.

Sounds like BS.  What technqiues?  Why only Chinese pools?  If you're talking about ASICboost, well with or without it, blocks will still be solved every 10 minutes so it won't change blockchain bloat or mempool.

Sigwit will put an end to ASIC boost,

There's other ways to end asicboost.  if this is why you want segwit, its not a strong argument for it. 

[Quantus]

You asked why I support X then said my replay was true yet irrelevant? I'm a little confused about this.

(sounds like BS) if you don't know how ASIC boost works how can you refute it?

I am no expert but It is known that Chines mining pools reorder/rearrange transactions and even create fake transactions so when they are hashed into the merkle root of blocks they create many possible versions of an acceptable block and then attempt to mine all of them simultaneously thus increasing the odds they will find an acceptable output that meets the difficulty level of one of them. I think I heard someone refer to it as increasing the key space.
This in and of itself is not wrong or improper I myself am impressed they kept this secret for as long as they did but its bad for the blockchain and the bitcoin network as a whole.

[jonald_fyookball]

You asked why I support X then said my replay was true yet irrelevant? I'm a little confused about this.

The part about "Many people think bitcoin is already to complicated." is true but irrelevant.
 

I am no expert but It is known that Chines mining pools reorder/rearrange transactions and even create fake transactions so when they are hashed into the merkle root of blocks they crate many possible versions of an acceptable block and then attempt to mine all of them simultaneously thus increasing the odds they will find an acceptable output that meets the difficulty level. This in and of itself is not wrong or improper I myself am impressed they kept this secret for as long as they did but its bad for the blockchain and the bitcoin network as a whole.

Yes its how they are arranging things and hashing them.  This may give a miner an energy advantage but I don't see how it can possibly effect blockchain bloat or the mempool, which is what you claimed.  

If you still like segwit mainly because that is the Core team's work and part of their roadmap, please have the integrity to admit that.

[Quantus]

 
"Yes its how they are arranging things and hashing them.  This may give a miner an energy advantage but I don't see how it can possibly effect blockchain bloat or the mempool, which is what you claimed.  "

Why did you bring up energy advantage? Oh wait I know because people like the idea of miners saving power because we must save the earth. You seem to be missing my point. And trying to manipulate readers.

They are building blocks and filling them with fake transactions, thus the blocks are larger then they need to be thus the block chain is larger then it needs to be, thus less room for real transactions. Thus more transaction backlogs and a unfair advantage for Chines mining pools that will inevitably lead to monopoly control of the mining network and loss of confidence in the Bitcoin system. And if you make the blocks larger that just allows The chines mining pools to gain even more advantage because then they would have more room to create custom transactions that "incrase the key space" of a acceptable blocks at the cost of hard drive space on full nodes making it cost more for full node operators. Causing the number of full nodes to drop, thus weakening the network against a Ddos attack.


And yes I support the Core because it is the most peer reviewed software in the whole world with some of the smartest people on earth working to improve it.  While the XT, Bitcoin classic, and BU groups are just tools of the Chines mining pools. Puppets.  

So again if you make blocks larger without fixing transaction malleability you just make the problem of spam worse. 

[BADecker]

<>

They are building blocks and filling them with fake transactions, thus the blocks are larger then they need to be thus the block chain is larger then it needs to be, thus less room for real transactions. Thus backlogs and unfair advantage that will inevitably lead to monopoly control.

However, maybe they are using a modified form of Core that is sending encrypted messages through the blockchain in ways that Core doesn't recognize, so we don't even know the messages are there.