Bitcoin Forum
September 23, 2018, 09:40:44 AM *
News: ♦♦ New info! Bitcoin Core users absolutely must upgrade to previously-announced 0.16.3 [Torrent]. All Bitcoin users should temporarily trust confirmations slightly less. More info.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: What to do against the network congestion? Solution in addition to SegWit & LN  (Read 41 times)
PhilippElhaus
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1
Merit: 0


View Profile
December 20, 2017, 06:35:34 PM
 #1

It‘s obviously a massive problem right now.

Even if LN comes, there needs to be at least a temporary or emergency mechanism to work off such a huge load of unconfirmed transactions to „flush the toilett“. There‘s a shitload of mining power available but its not used properly to benefit speedy transactions, the problem is in engineering.

If the miners dont want to increase the BlockSize permanently, why is there no congestion solution like:
#
IF Unconfirmed Transactions / Mempool reaches size x or ratio y for too long period of time
THEN increase blocksize for the next Z blocks by factor (2-8, what makes most sense), after that return to normal blocksize of 1MB
#

Like this is not hard, not a fully retarded idea and gives temporary relief to a congestion that is now in its third week. If that huge amount we currently have be worked off at least ONCE completelty at some point it would be way harder to get to such a high level of 200k+ unconfirmed again. Share this idea or bump this if you think that should be in.
1537695644
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1537695644

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1537695644
Reply with quote  #2

1537695644
Report to moderator
1537695644
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1537695644

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1537695644
Reply with quote  #2

1537695644
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1537695644
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1537695644

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1537695644
Reply with quote  #2

1537695644
Report to moderator
1537695644
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1537695644

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1537695644
Reply with quote  #2

1537695644
Report to moderator
1537695644
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1537695644

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1537695644
Reply with quote  #2

1537695644
Report to moderator
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2128
Merit: 1339



View Profile
December 20, 2017, 07:13:55 PM
 #2

If the miners dont want to increase the BlockSize permanently, why is there no congestion solution like:
#
IF Unconfirmed Transactions / Mempool reaches size x or ratio y for too long period of time
THEN increase blocksize for the next Z blocks by factor (2-8, what makes most sense), after that return to normal blocksize of 1MB
#

At least some larger miners do want to increase the blocksize. If there are fewer regular users enforcing Bitcoin's rules, then it would be easier for the miners to just make up their own rules.


So the problem with your plan is pretty obvious. Large miners have alot of BTC. If they flood the network with enough transactions to saturate the current limit (which is 4MB, not 1MB), then they can push the new limit high enough to remove the users running full nodes from Bitcoin completely.

Vires in numeris
nullius
Copper Member
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 757


Help! I’ve got the Pleurodelinaemia! @nym.zone


View Profile WWW
December 20, 2017, 11:15:55 PM
 #3

So the problem with your plan is pretty obvious. Large miners have alot of BTC. If they flood the network with enough transactions to saturate the current limit (which is 4MB, not 1MB), then they can push the new limit high enough to remove the users running full nodes from Bitcoin completely.

Methinks the problem is also perfectly obvious to “PhilippElhaus”, and that is why this “newbie” made this proposal in his first (thus far only) post.

To some people, killing off independent full nodes isn’t a bug; it’s a feature.  They wear the mask of a thousand forks, but their agenda is always the same.

Quote from: Tom Zander
[...] I think a much higher rate of benefit can be reached by educating the people that run full nodes and explaining how they are not in actual fact helping the network. The simple fact is that if they didn’t run those nodes, this whole discussion would not exist.

Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!