segwit@work? mempool empty

[vincentvincent]

It seems as things are better now with since the waiting transactions seems to go down:

http://www.newsbtc.com/2017/09/02/bitcoin-mempool-empty-high-transaction-fees-no-longer-required/

Could this be because of segwith?

If I look at: http://segwit.party/charts/ the number of segwit transactions is at 1%. That is positive I think since segwith is only active for 2 weeks now.

[1714016979]

1714016979

[1714016979]

1714016979

[1714016979]

1714016979

[danielW]

Its not because of segwit. Segwit transactions are barely 1% of all transactions. Segwit has made no significant impact on transaction capacity so far.

[BillyBobZorton]

It seems as things are better now with since the waiting transactions seems to go down:

http://www.newsbtc.com/2017/09/02/bitcoin-mempool-empty-high-transaction-fees-no-longer-required/

Could this be because of segwith?

If I look at: http://segwit.party/charts/ the number of segwit transactions is at 1%. That is positive I think since segwith is only active for 2 weeks now.

On the weekend, generally the mempool becomes less filled up with transactions because simply people aren't transacting, they are out doing other things. It could also be that Roger Ver and Jihan Wu took a break from spamming the network (Jeff Garzik probably involved in spamming now too that the want to push the 2x crap)

Segwit transactions are growing but we will not see massive usage until wallets are updated starting with Core 0.15.

[veleten]

It seems as things are better now with since the waiting transactions seems to go down:

http://www.newsbtc.com/2017/09/02/bitcoin-mempool-empty-high-transaction-fees-no-longer-required/

Could this be because of segwith?

If I look at: http://segwit.party/charts/ the number of segwit transactions is at 1%. That is positive I think since segwith is only active for 2 weeks now.

On the weekend, generally the mempool becomes less filled up with transactions because simply people aren't transacting, they are out doing other things. It could also be that Roger Ver and Jihan Wu took a break from spamming the network (Jeff Garzik probably involved in spamming now too that the want to push the 2x crap)

Segwit transactions are growing but we will not see massive usage until wallets are updated starting with Core 0.15.

the spamming must be the main reason for the congestion,it seems
it is not that bitcoin users have magically stopped sending coins this weekend-it costs money to spam the network
and even the resulting high fees do not justify the money spent

[reee]

Its not because of segwit. Segwit transactions are barely 1% of all transactions. Segwit has made no significant impact on transaction capacity so far.

Exactly.
Simlply in these days there are fewer transactions, it's not that all blocks need to be full.

[miguelmorales85]

Its not because of segwit. Segwit transactions are barely 1% of all transactions. Segwit has made no significant impact on transaction capacity so far.

Exactly.
Simlply in these days there are fewer transactions, it's not that all blocks need to be full.

I think we will see an impact when most of the TX are made between SegWit enabled wallets.

[severaldetails]

It seems as things are better now with since the waiting transactions seems to go down:

http://www.newsbtc.com/2017/09/02/bitcoin-mempool-empty-high-transaction-fees-no-longer-required/

Could this be because of segwith?

If I look at: http://segwit.party/charts/ the number of segwit transactions is at 1%. That is positive I think since segwith is only active for 2 weeks now.

On the weekend, generally the mempool becomes less filled up with transactions because simply people aren't transacting, they are out doing other things. It could also be that Roger Ver and Jihan Wu took a break from spamming the network (Jeff Garzik probably involved in spamming now too that the want to push the 2x crap)

Segwit transactions are growing but we will not see massive usage until wallets are updated starting with Core 0.15.

the spamming must be the main reason for the congestion,it seems
it is not that bitcoin users have magically stopped sending coins this weekend-it costs money to spam the network
and even the resulting high fees do not justify the money spent

If it was really an attempt to push through segwit2x, might it be possible that the spammer thinks he has reached his goal?
The mined blocks signaling support are in a very big majority.
From his point of view, putting more money in a spam attack is a waste of resources.

[sjbi]

It too can be due to uncertainty in price change in bitcoins, other altcoins and the ban in ICOs. As,  Bitcoin is directly or indirectly (through ETH) the largest used currency for ICOs.

[AtheistAKASaneBrain]

It seems as things are better now with since the waiting transactions seems to go down:

http://www.newsbtc.com/2017/09/02/bitcoin-mempool-empty-high-transaction-fees-no-longer-required/

Could this be because of segwith?

If I look at: http://segwit.party/charts/ the number of segwit transactions is at 1%. That is positive I think since segwith is only active for 2 weeks now.

On the weekend, generally the mempool becomes less filled up with transactions because simply people aren't transacting, they are out doing other things. It could also be that Roger Ver and Jihan Wu took a break from spamming the network (Jeff Garzik probably involved in spamming now too that the want to push the 2x crap)

Segwit transactions are growing but we will not see massive usage until wallets are updated starting with Core 0.15.

the spamming must be the main reason for the congestion,it seems
it is not that bitcoin users have magically stopped sending coins this weekend-it costs money to spam the network
and even the resulting high fees do not justify the money spent

If it was really an attempt to push through segwit2x, might it be possible that the spammer thinks he has reached his goal?
The mined blocks signaling support are in a very big majority.
From his point of view, putting more money in a spam attack is a waste of resources.

I don't think they think they have reached their goal. In fact, segwit2x is losing hashrate as miners are starting to defect from the NYC.

I predict further spam in the mempool. Let's not kid ourselves here, their goal is to hardfork and cause as much havok as possible on the legacy chain, these pundits will not stop until the end. It's still september, the hardfork is in november. Hopefully more miners keep leaving the agreement, it seems this is the beginning of the end of segwit2x and we will go to ATH.

[Casimir1904]

I don't think it was spam at all.
With the EDA kicking in on Bitcoin Cash the hashrate dropped a lot and same time the markets was pretty crazy what just caused a lot of transactions.
It was growing all the time and dropped a lot short before the Split on 1st August.
https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions?timespan=all&daysAverageString=7
Increased then when Bitcoin was reaching all time highs and then when the fees spiked the amount of transactions decreased again.
It makes no sense that spammers spam a lot when its very expensive but then stop when its cheap. They would start spamming when its cheap and if it would be miners they would just continue spamming low fee transactions to collect higher fees on normal transactions.

With now lower fees the amounts of Transactions is growing again slowly, probably soon the cap is reached again and then the fees will increase a lot again.
High fees causes less transactions, low fees causes more again but lot users will stop using Bitcoin for good as well when they had to pay high fees.

The first time the tx fees spiked for longer Bitcoin lost a lot of market share that made them lower also again.
It was also a time when Bitcoin price increased and was so more used.

[mmortal03]

Its not because of segwit. Segwit transactions are barely 1% of all transactions. Segwit has made no significant impact on transaction capacity so far.

Exactly.
Simlply in these days there are fewer transactions, it's not that all blocks need to be full.

I think we will see an impact when most of the TX are made between SegWit enabled wallets.

Yep, SegWit transactions have been up to 18% of the total, and we've had many larger than 1MB blocks, but what's holding it back is sites such as Blockchain.info, Coinbase/GDAX, ShapeShift, BitPay, Poloniex, Gemini, Bitfinex, and Purse.io still, to my knowledge, haven't added SegWit receiving/deposit address support. You'd think they'd all want to do it, if only just so that they, themselves, could save on transaction fees -- not to mention being able to sell their users/customers on the ability to save on transaction fees. People should contact any of these companies about adding SegWit addresses -- if we genuinely want to help solve the problem, it's something that these businesses can already do right now.