why still so many blocks with 243kB?

[yaffare]

In the last few weeks every time I go to blockchain.info I see a lot of 243kB blocks.

243kB = 250000 bytes

http://imageshack.us/a/img842/3316/blockchain.png

This makes sense to me before May 15, because maximum blocksize was 500kb,
and until half of the block price is normal, then price is bigger if block is more than 50% full.

But why still the limit at 250000 bytes and not 500000 bytes even after May 15?

[Peter Lambert]

Maybe not everybody updated?

[DeathAndTaxes]

two possibilities.

a) a larger miner (think major pool) is scared of producing blocks larger than 250KB due to increased chance of orphans on larger blocks.
b) there aren't that many paying transactions.  miner have increasingly less reason to expand block sizes to include large swaths of free transactions.  Yet many users (likely being sold "Bitcoin is free" nonsense) insist on never including a tx fee.

On the second point let me share an antecdote.  Had a customer who absolutely needed a wire received that day and the bad news is it was already 3PM EST when he sent the transaction.  He paid us $20 wire fee (plus accepting a lower exchange rate).  Now we will lock in an exchange rate at 0-confirms but won't send funds until 3-confirms (6-confirms is just overkill for 99.9% of tx out there BTW).  I think you already know where this is going.  To save a quarter penny the client opted to not include a tx fee.  His order didn't confirm until after the wire deadline had passed, worse it was on a Friday. So he saved a quarter penny and got his cash three days later.

Would be interesting to do some stats which take a look at when a block is produced how much of the "excluded" memory pool was paying tx, average fee, how many unpaid low priority, how many unpaid high priority, etc.

[Photon939]

Blocks will only be as large as they need to be.

The only time you will have "full" blocks is if there are so many pending transactions that you reach the blocksize limit before all the pending transactions are included.

[DeathAndTaxes]

and until half of the block price is normal, then price is bigger if block is more than 50% full.

I am fairly certain that is no longer in the rules.  Miners are free to include whatever tx they wish at whatever fee threshold.
0.8.2 (and prior versions) simplified the fee structure a lot.

Today the min* fee to be relayed is:
0 BTC for high priority tx
0.0001 BTC for low priority txs

* Note this the in the min fee to be relayed.  Tx compete for block space so paying unpaid high priority tx may (and likely won't) be included in the next block.  I just pay 0.0001 BTC on all txs high priority or low and sometimes bump that up to 0.001 BTC for an "urgent" tx (like sending 500 BTC to an exchange for liquidation).  I would say 90%+ of my tx are included in the next block.  Now if MtGox would just join the 21st century and reduce their confirmation requirement to 3 confirms.

[oakpacific]

two possibilities.

a) a larger miner (think major pool) is scared of producing blocks larger than 250KB due to increased chance of orphans on larger blocks.
b) there aren't that many paying transactions.  miner have increasingly less reason to expand block sizes to include large swaths of free transactions.  Yet many users (likely being sold "Bitcoin is free" nonsense) insist on never including a tx fee.

On the second point let me share an antecdote.  Had a customer who absolutely needed a wire received that day and the bad news is it was already 3PM EST when he sent the transaction.  He paid us $20 wire fee (plus accepting a lower exchange rate).  Now we will lock in an exchange rate at 0-confirms but won't send funds until 3-confirms (6-confirms is just overkill for 99.9% of tx out there BTW).  I think you already know where this is going.  To save a quarter penny the client opted to not include a tx fee.  His order didn't confirm until after the wire deadline had passed, worse it was on a Friday. So he saved a quarter penny and got his cash three days later.

Would be interesting to do some stats which take a look at when a block is produced how much of the "excluded" memory pool was paying tx, average fee, how many unpaid low priority, how many unpaid high priority, etc.

25 BTCs is still a lot for 3 times more free transactions, no?

[DeathAndTaxes]

Blocks will only be as large as they need to be.

The only time you will have "full" blocks is if there are so many pending transactions that you reach the blocksize limit before all the pending transactions are included.

Which is pretty much all the time now.  I don't think the memory pool has gone to zero for a second block in the last week or so.

For example there are 3,000 unconfirmed tx right now:
http://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions

This might be an interesting thing for blockchain.info to start graphing.  The number of unconfirmed (maybe all, no fee, fee) tx over time.

[DeathAndTaxes]

25 BTCs is still a lot for 3 times more free transactions, no?

Not sure what you are saying.  A miner can get 25 BTC for no free transactions.  Including more free transactions doesn't increase their reward however (in theory) a larger block does increase the chance of orphans.  Some more free transactions = less net reward over time.  Most pools are "nice" and knowing it supports Bitcoin ecosystem, which supports exchange rates, which pays their bills will still include "some" free transactions but increasingly people should start to consider Bitcoin "low cost" not "free".  Of course if you think this is "wrong" you can always start mining and include nothing but free transactions.     I stopped mining in February so I no longer have a horse in this race.

Bitcoin is free as in free speech not free beer.

[oakpacific]

25 BTCs is still a lot for 3 times more free transactions, no?

Not sure what you are saying.  A miner can get 25 BTC for no free transactions.  Including more free transactions doesn't increase their reward however (in theory) a larger block does increase the chance of orphans.  Some more free transactions = less net reward over time.  Most pools are "nice" and knowing it supports Bitcoin ecosystem, which supports exchange rates, which pays their bills will still include "some" free transactions but increasingly people should start to consider Bitcoin "low cost" not "free".  Of course if you think this is "wrong" you can always start mining and include nothing but free transactions.     I stopped mining in February so I no longer have a horse in this race.

Bitcoin is free as in free speech not free beer.

Yes, I am just surprised that miners(most of them pools) still care that much about transaction fees, to the extent that no-fee transactions would sometimes take forever to be included into a block, I thought the 25 BTCs reward is already enough for them to take minimal care about how many free transactions they have to include, especially given that we are still nowhere near the size limit.

[yaffare]

I think all pools just use what is given by upstream.

And my concern is that the default maximum block size given by upstream is 243kB.
There is no other way, why should every pool produce all the time exactly 243kB?

[grue]

Yes, I am just surprised that miners(most of them pools) still care that much about transaction fees, to the extent that no-fee transactions would sometimes take forever to be included into a block, I thought the 25 BTCs reward is already enough for them to take minimal care about how many free transactions they have to include, especially given that we are still nowhere near the size limit.

All my recent no fee transactions are included quickly (within 10 blocks). You probably played satoshidice too often, or your wallet is full of dust inputs.

[SgtSpike]

25 BTCs is still a lot for 3 times more free transactions, no?

Not sure what you are saying.  A miner can get 25 BTC for no free transactions.  Including more free transactions doesn't increase their reward however (in theory) a larger block does increase the chance of orphans.  Some more free transactions = less net reward over time.  Most pools are "nice" and knowing it supports Bitcoin ecosystem, which supports exchange rates, which pays their bills will still include "some" free transactions but increasingly people should start to consider Bitcoin "low cost" not "free".  Of course if you think this is "wrong" you can always start mining and include nothing but free transactions.     I stopped mining in February so I no longer have a horse in this race.

Bitcoin is free as in free speech not free beer.

Yes, I am just surprised that miners(most of them pools) still care that much about transaction fees, to the extent that no-fee transactions would sometimes take forever to be included into a block, I thought the 25 BTCs reward is already enough for them to take minimal care about how many free transactions they have to include, especially given that we are still nowhere near the size limit.

It's still money, even if it is a small amount.

Including more transactions makes the block larger, which makes propagation time slower, which increases the chance of orphans.  Therefore, miners want to only include transactions with a transaction fee so that they are getting paid in exchange for the higher risk they run by increasing their chance of the block orphaning.

[grue]

Yes, I am just surprised that miners(most of them pools) still care that much about transaction fees, to the extent that no-fee transactions would sometimes take forever to be included into a block, I thought the 25 BTCs reward is already enough for them to take minimal care about how many free transactions they have to include, especially given that we are still nowhere near the size limit.

Are you really so cheap that you can't afford a 13 cent (0.001 BTC) transaction fee? 0.001 BTC is enough for most transactions to get into the next block.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Yes, I am just surprised that miners(most of them pools) still care that much about transaction fees, to the extent that no-fee transactions would sometimes take forever to be included into a block, I thought the 25 BTCs reward is already enough for them to take minimal care about how many free transactions they have to include, especially given that we are still nowhere near the size limit.

Are you really so cheap that you can't afford a 13 cent (0.001 BTC) transaction fee? 0.001 BTC is enough for most transactions to get into the next block.

In my experience even 0.0001 (per KB) is good for inclusion in the next block most of the time and that is ~1 penny. 

[DeathAndTaxes]

Yes, I am just surprised that miners(most of them pools) still care that much about transaction fees, to the extent that no-fee transactions would sometimes take forever to be included into a block, I thought the 25 BTCs reward is already enough for them to take minimal care about how many free transactions they have to include, especially given that we are still nowhere near the size limit.

I (and just assuming here) think it is more the potential loss due to orphans.  Let hypothetically say a 1MB block has a 1% higher chance of being orphaned than a 250KB block.  To avoid losing funds (relative to just mining 250KB blocks) one would only produce a 1MB block if it produced 1% more revenue.  Otherwise the miner is operated as charity.  Accepting lower revenue (and potentially losing hashing power to more competitive pools) in order to subsidies free users.  Now looking at blocks almost all miners DO include a certain number of high priority tx (i.e. not dust spam) with no fee but they cap that amount.  The amount is likely a balance between being altruistic and maximizing revenue for current block (and damaging reputation of Bitcoin).

Still the long term solution is for more users to include (even very small) tx fees with their txs.  If a miner can earn 2% more by mining a 1MB block and that will only result in a 1% increase in orphans rates then miners are leaving "money on the table" by not picking up those transactions.  Eventually some or all miners will and those who won't will be less competitive and lose hashing power to those who do.  Note: miners is the entity creating the block, most "miners" are nothing of the sort they are just selling hashing power.

[scintill]

To save a quarter penny the client opted to not include a tx fee.  His order didn't confirm until after the wire deadline had passed, worse it was on a Friday. So he saved a quarter penny and got his cash three days later.

There is an interesting psychology around tx fees.  I think people get carried away with the "power" of being able to choose their own fee and get really stingy with a few US cents.  If we start getting closer to the hard limit, or even self-imposed lower limits, people are going to have to pay for that scarce block space, much more than a few cents per tx.  It may be a little OT for this thread, but I think that should happen for at least awhile, rather than raising the block size at the first sign that the old one is getting filled.

[oakpacific]

Yes, I am just surprised that miners(most of them pools) still care that much about transaction fees, to the extent that no-fee transactions would sometimes take forever to be included into a block, I thought the 25 BTCs reward is already enough for them to take minimal care about how many free transactions they have to include, especially given that we are still nowhere near the size limit.

Are you really so cheap that you can't afford a 13 cent (0.001 BTC) transaction fee? 0.001 BTC is enough for most transactions to get into the next block.

Why some people insist on taking things to a personal level is beyond me. Who said it has anything to do with "me"? Otherwise why should I be surprised?

[oakpacific]

Yes, I am just surprised that miners(most of them pools) still care that much about transaction fees, to the extent that no-fee transactions would sometimes take forever to be included into a block, I thought the 25 BTCs reward is already enough for them to take minimal care about how many free transactions they have to include, especially given that we are still nowhere near the size limit.

I (and just assuming here) think it is more the potential loss due to orphans.  Let hypothetically say a 1MB block has a 1% higher chance of being orphaned than a 250KB block.  To avoid losing funds (relative to just mining 250KB blocks) one would only produce a 1MB block if it produced 1% more revenue.  Otherwise the miner is operated as charity.  Accepting lower revenue (and potentially losing hashing power to more competitive pools) in order to subsidies free users.  Now looking at blocks almost all miners DO include a certain number of high priority tx (i.e. not dust spam) with no fee but they cap that amount.  The amount is likely a balance between being altruistic and maximizing revenue for current block (and damaging reputation of Bitcoin).

Still the long term solution is for more users to include (even very small) tx fees with their txs.  If a miner can earn 2% more by mining a 1MB block and that will only result in a 1% increase in orphans rates then miners are leaving "money on the table" by not picking up those transactions.  Eventually some or all miners will and those who won't will be less competitive and lose hashing power to those who do.  Note: miners is the entity creating the block, most "miners" are nothing of the sort they are just selling hashing power.

Hmmm, yes, maybe it's a good idea to set up a pool which not just distribute shares to miners, but also give them the voting power when it comes to transaction policy? Otherwise I may want to relay transactions for free, but I couldn't even produce any effect without investing hundreds of thousands on equipments first.

[grue]

Are you really so cheap that you can't afford a 13 cent (0.001 BTC) transaction fee? 0.001 BTC is enough for most transactions to get into the next block.

Why some people insist on taking things to a personal level is beyond me. Who said it has anything to do with "me"? Otherwise why should I be surprised?

see: "Responding to Tone" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement1.svg

Also, your assumption that 25 BTC subsidy is to provide free transactions is false. The 25 subsidy is exactly that: something to bootstrap the miners when there aren't enough transactions. There are plenty of transactions now and the subsidy has been halved already. Miners are under no obligation to include any transaction for free. Users should get used to the idea of paying (a fraction of a dollar) for fast confirmations.

Hmmm, yes, maybe it's a good idea to set up a pool which not just distribute shares to miners, but also give them the voting power when it comes to transaction policy? Otherwise I may want to relay transactions for free, but I couldn't even produce any effect without investing hundreds of thousands on equipments first.

that is being worked on: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=221164.0

[oakpacific]

Are you really so cheap that you can't afford a 13 cent (0.001 BTC) transaction fee? 0.001 BTC is enough for most transactions to get into the next block.

Why some people insist on taking things to a personal level is beyond me. Who said it has anything to do with "me"? Otherwise why should I be surprised?

see: "Responding to Tone" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement1.svg

Also, your assumption that 25 BTC subsidy is to provide free transactions is false. The 25 subsidy is exactly that: something to bootstrap the miners when there aren't enough transactions. There are plenty of transactions now and the subsidy has been halved already. Miners are under no obligation to include any transaction for free. Users should get used to the idea of paying (a fraction of a dollar) for fast confirmations.

Even if you think a level 5 rebuttal is OK, I believe my tone was pretty reserved, not like that I complain or something.

And I didn't say the 25 BTCs reward is to provide free transactions, I was just surprised that miners still "care that much" about transaction fees when the 25BTCs reward is worthing a lot already.