Bitcoin Forum
October 20, 2018, 01:16:19 AM *
News: Make sure you are not using versions of Bitcoin Core other than 0.17.0 [Torrent], 0.16.3, 0.15.2, or 0.14.3. More info.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Which type of transactions causes more congestion to network?  (Read 84 times)
Severos
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 264
Merit: 116


View Profile
March 12, 2018, 04:43:29 AM
 #1

While it's nearly impossible to get accurate numbers, I'd like to hear what you guys think. Does international transactions (between 2 address that their owners are in different countries) cause more congestion to network? or local transactions (between 2 address that their owners live in same country).


==============EDIT (scroll down a bit to see where I said that but no one read it.=============
For all people above saying that geographic location doesn't matter, I know that.
Probably I've written my question in an ambiguous way, what I'm asking is, do you think the number of transactions moving funds between wallets whose owners are in different countries is more than the number of transactions moving funds between wallets whose owners are in same country.
Why that matter? if the local transactions count for more, then maybe there's a solution to reduce the number of transactions by creating a coin that runs on 2 separate chains (or more) somehow. one chain for local tx, and other for international tx, I'm still thinking of the way this would be implemented, but in theory this can reduce network congestion by creating a 'local chainS' and 'international chain'.
1539998179
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1539998179

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1539998179
Reply with quote  #2

1539998179
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
fiulpro
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 616
Merit: 266


View Profile
March 12, 2018, 04:53:48 AM
 #2

I think when it comes to Bitcoins both are equal this is what I feel rather I think it's more dependent on the fact of wallet to wallet.
The same wallet can do faster transaction and the ones of different wallet generally show a slower transaction rate.
It's based on the addresses ...
Loveboard
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 84
Merit: 7

Cointrade - Bringing crypto trading to the people!


View Profile
March 12, 2018, 06:44:44 AM
 #3

It doesn't depend on the physical distance between two people. Wallets and addresses aren't IP-address dependent.

What clogs a network is the amount of transactions. Some people try to send small amounts of bit coins via many transactions. When people breakup transactions into multiple transactions, it clogs the system

Cointrade - Bringing crypto trading to the people! (https://cointrade.es/)
Pre-ICO "April 8th, 2018"
Kingofbitcoin12345
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 406
Merit: 102



View Profile
March 12, 2018, 07:03:51 AM
 #4

Geographical location doesn’t seem the reason to it,, most of the congestion we encountered are more numbers of transactions in a certain time.. In most cases at the hype and bitcoin is at high price,, it also way of miners to abuse the demand and implementing a much higher transaction fees..

In my opinion competitors are flooding the network to make it congested and bitcoin users be angry towards bitcoin core..

____________yahoo62278 CAMPAIGN MANAGER________  ◥◥  The Best & Most Popular Manager  ◤◤  ____________
ICO Manager          Bounty Manager          Signature Campaign Manager          Twitter Campaign Manager
█████████████████████████   ADD "yahoo62278" on Telegram & Skype   █████████████████████████
VitKoyn
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 392
Merit: 106


View Profile
March 12, 2018, 07:32:41 AM
 #5

While it's nearly impossible to get accurate numbers, I'd like to hear what you guys think. Does international transactions (between 2 address that their owners are in different countries) cause more congestion to network? or local transactions (between 2 address that their owners live in same country).
Making Bitcoin transactions locally or international does not really matter here and probably not the cause of congestion on the network because all transactions are getting confirmed faster when you pay higher fess and slower confirmation time for lower fees (location doesn't matter). What makes Bitcoin network congested is when there are lots of people who transact Bitcoin that pays lower transaction fees than the current level of fees where transaction are getting confirmed or should I say spam low transaction fees and it is possible to spam the network since it can only confirm limited transactions per day. And the more unconfirmed transactions the higher the transaction fee will be.
hugeblack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 354


Avatar 4 rent / Sig Designer https://goo.gl/34QBYf


View Profile WWW
March 12, 2018, 08:01:18 AM
 #6

When you do a treatment using Bitcoin, these factors will not affect:

  • Value of the transaction: Sending 1 Bitcoin and 0.00001 have the same effect.
  • Geographic dimension: Sending a bitcoin to your neighbor or to someone about 1000 kilometers away from you has the same effect.
  • Internet speed: sending Bitcoin using 1 KB/s and 1 GB/s has the same effect.
  • Your operating system: Sending Bitcoin from any operating system has the same effect.

The most common types of spam are:

  • Many individual transactions: If you want to send Bitcoin to multiple users at the same time it is best to compile them.
  • Fake transactions: send bitcoin to your self.
  • very low-fee transactions.

palle11
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 108


View Profile
March 12, 2018, 08:33:25 AM
 #7

The leading cause from my perspective is the number of transactions clustering the network at the same time whether real transaction or unreal. Whether trier transaction or genuine transaction.

anobtc
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 378
Merit: 12

Vietnamese Translator™ https://goo.gl/7inMji


View Profile WWW
March 12, 2018, 09:40:42 AM
 #8

I think countries is not related to congestion of network. Transaction speed is effected by total activity miners and block size of that blockchain which coin using. More miners will guarrantee the operation of blockchain system

▀▀█▄▄    [websitewhitepaper]  ❒  ATHERO  ❒  Internet 3.0 solution    ▄▄█▀▀
▪  A revolutionary decentralized digital economy  ▪
▄▄█▀▀      Twitter  ◽  Facebook  ◽  Telegram  ◽  Youtube  ◽  GitHub      ▀▀█▄▄
Severos
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 264
Merit: 116


View Profile
March 12, 2018, 10:46:01 AM
 #9

For all people above saying that geographic location doesn't matter, I know that.
Probably I've written my question in an ambiguous way, what I'm asking is, do you think the number of transactions moving funds between wallets whose owners are in different countries is more than the number of transactions moving funds between wallets whose owners are in same country.
Why that matter? if the local transactions count for more, then maybe there's a solution to reduce the number of transactions by creating a coin that runs on 2 separate chains (or more) somehow. one chain for local tx, and other for international tx, I'm still thinking of the way this would be implemented, but in theory this can reduce network congestion by creating a 'local chainS' and 'international chain'.
hase0278
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 882
Merit: 535



View Profile
March 12, 2018, 10:47:42 AM
 #10

While it's nearly impossible to get accurate numbers, I'd like to hear what you guys think. Does international transactions (between 2 address that their owners are in different countries) cause more congestion to network? or local transactions (between 2 address that their owners live in same country).

International transactions will not congest the network. The transactions made in every country is the same and will not cause traffic in blockchain directly, not unless it is sent multiple times. What causes the congestion of network is the sudden increase in the volume of transactions which happens during Christmas or any time where there is an event or during massive bullish trends. That is also the reason why network is congested at times when users want to sell.

        ▄▄███████████▄▄
     ▄██▀▀           ▀▀██▄
   ▄█▀   ▄▄█████████▄▄   ▀█▄
  █▀  ▄███████▌ █▌ █████▄  ▀█
 █▀  ██  ██         ▀█████  ▀█
▐█  ██▀▀█████   ▄▄▄   █████  █▌
█▌ ▐██▄▄████▌  ████   █████▌ ▐█
█  ███  ████        ▄███████  █
█▌ ▐█▀▀████▌   ▄▄▄  ▀██████▌ ▐█
▐█  █▄▄████   ████   ▐█████  █▌
 █▄  ████           ▄█████  ▄█
  █▄  ▀████  ███  ██████▀  ▄█
   ▀█▄   ▀▀█████████▀▀   ▄█▀
     ▀██▄▄           ▄▄██▀
        ▀▀███████████▀▀
bitcore.
...The Future Is Now...
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄    ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄     ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄

        ██
██████
        ██
        ██████
        ██
██████
        ██
        ██████
        ██
██████
                 ▄▄██
 ▄██████████████████████▄
█▀         ▄▄██▀▀   ██  ▀█
█▄     ▄▄██▀▀        ██  █
█▀█████████████████████████▄
█                          ▀█
█                           █
█              ▄████▄       █
█             ██▀  ▀██      █
█            ▐█▌    ▐████████
█             ██▄  ▄██      █
█              ▀████▀       █
█                           █
█▄                         ▄█
 ▀█████████████████████████▀
.
iOs
Android

        ██
        ██████
        ██
██████
        ██
        ██████
        ██
██████
        ██
        ██████


     ▄▄█████████▄▄
   ▄███▀▀     ▀▀███▄
  ███             ███
 ███               ███
▐██   ▐█▄   ▄███▄   ██▌
██▌    ███▄██████▀  ▐██
██▌    ▐████████    ▐██
▐██     ▐██████     ██▌
 ███   ▀█████▀     ███
  ███             ███
   ▀███▄▄     ▄▄███▀
     ▀▀█████████▀▀


     ▄▄█████████▄▄
   ▄███▀▀     ▀▀███▄
  ███             ███
 ███       ▄███    ███
▐██       █████     ██▌
██▌       ███       ▐██
██▌     ███████     ▐██
▐██       ███       ██▌
 ███      ███      ███
  ███             ███
   ▀███▄▄     ▄▄███▀
     ▀▀█████████▀▀


     ▄▄█████████▄▄
   ▄███▀▀     ▀▀███▄
  ███             ███
 ███         ▄▄█▌  ███
▐██      ▄▄█████    ██▌
██▌   ▄████████     ▐██
██▌  ▐████████      ▐██
▐██    ▀▀████       ██▌
 ███     ▀██       ███
  ███             ███
   ▀███▄▄     ▄▄███▀
     ▀▀█████████▀▀
Website
ANN
Block Explorer
alyssa85
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302
Merit: 1056


View Profile
March 12, 2018, 11:08:35 AM
 #11

While it's nearly impossible to get accurate numbers, I'd like to hear what you guys think. Does international transactions (between 2 address that their owners are in different countries) cause more congestion to network? or local transactions (between 2 address that their owners live in same country).


It makes no difference - the bitcoin protocol treats both exactly the same.

Hydrogen
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 938
Merit: 674



View Profile
March 12, 2018, 11:14:07 AM
 #12

There was a study published on btc network spam in september 2017. It was entitled: The Curious Case of Bitcoin’s “Moby Dick” Spam and the Miners That Confirmed It. It contains interesting information relating to miners and the potential for many bitcoin transactions to be spamware attacks designed to push political agendas relating to blocksize.

It might also be mentioned that at the time of this article bitcoin mining may have been heavily centralized in china with chinese miners wielding great power and influence over the network. That precedent may decline in the future as japan, russia and others move to adopt bitcoin with bitmain's monopoly over ASICs being diluted by nvidia, samsung and others entering the ASIC manufacturing biz.

Quote
The scaling debate has dominated the Bitcoin space for well over two years now. As a central issue, Bitcoin’s one-megabyte block size limit was often insufficient to include all transactions on the network. This ultimately led to the replacement of this block size limit for a block weight limit through Segregated Witness, allowing for up to four megabytes of transaction data. And a group of Bitcoin companies plans to deploy a hard fork to double this by November.

But there is reason to believe the “crisis” may have been fabricated, at least partly. A recent analysis by “LaurentMT,” the developer of blockchain analytics tool OXT, in cooperation with Antoine Le Calvez, creator of Bitcoin statistics resource p2sh.info, shows that the Bitcoin network has had to deal with a load of spam transactions throughout the past two years. Now, in a three-part blog post series dubbing the spam attacks “Moby Dick,” their findings suggest that several major Bitcoin mining pools may have had a hand in this.

“Six or seven pools have played a major role in stuffing blocks with spam transactions,” LaurentMT said. “And charts display what looks like a coordination between these pools.”

The Spam Situation
The very concept of “spam” in the context of Bitcoin is sometimes disputed. Differentiating between “good” and “bad” transactions can be controversial on a network designed for permissionlessness innovation and censorship-resistant payments.

But there is little doubt that certain transactions serve no other purpose than to stuff the Bitcoin network and blockchain. LaurentMT and Le Calvez more specifically define spam as transactions that send lots of tiny fractions of bitcoins to lots of different outputs (“addresses”). These kinds of transactions can’t feasibly have been used to make actual payments, while they do present a significant burden on the Bitcoin network: all nodes need to receive, validate, transmit and (at least temporarily) store all this data.

The analysts found that the Bitcoin network has seen many transactions that fit this category: almost three gigabytes worth of data within a two-year span, adding up to more than 2 percent of the total size of the blockchain, or the equivalent of about a month’s worth of normal Bitcoin use.

“We found that there were four waves of ‘fan-out transactions’ during summer 2015,” LaurentMT told Bitcoin Magazine, referring to the transactions that create lots of outputs. “We think that the first two waves were spamming users and services. The third and fourth waves instead mostly sent the fractions of bitcoins to addresses controlled by the attackers themselves.”

These four waves of spam have been relatively easy to notice, as sudden bursts of transactions clogged up the Bitcoin network for brief periods of time. In some cases these spam attacks were even announced as “stress tests” or “bitcoin giveaways.”

What’s more interesting about LaurentMT and Le Calvez’s analysis is that the two focused on the second half of the puzzle. Almost all the fractions of bitcoins that were sent to all these different addresses have slowly been re-spent back into circulation since. These “fan-in” transactions were not as obvious as the initial waves of spam — but were similarly burdensome.

And, LaurentMT explained, blockchain analysis suggests that most of this spam can be tracked down to one or two entities:

“We’ve identified two wallets that seem to have played a central role in the attacks. They’ve funded long chains of fan-out transactions during summer 2015, and they later aggregated the dust outputs.”

The analysts also suggest that the perpetrator(s) of the spam may have been customers of the Canadian exchange QuadrigaCX. But that’s where their analysis stops.

The Mining Pools
Perhaps what is more interesting is who used this spam to fill up Bitcoin blocks: Bitcoin mining pools.

The spam outputs, generated by the first four waves of fan-out transactions, had been starting to move since autumn of 2015 — sort of. Whoever controlled these addresses had been broadcasting transactions to spend these outputs over the network. However, for a long time, miners did not include these “spam broadcasts” in their blocks; the transactions were ignored.

Up until the second half of 2016, that is. At a very specific point in time, a group of seven mining pools started to suddenly accept these spam broadcasts and include them in the blocks they mined: 1-Hash, Antpool, BitClub Network, BTC.com, HaoBTC, KanoCKPool and ViaBTC.

“So, either these seven pools had an ‘aha moment,’ and suddenly discovered that Bitcoin is about censorship resistance. Or, they had another motivation to fill up blocks with these transactions — perhaps related to the block size debate,” LaurentMT suggested.

For more clues, LaurentMT and Le Calvez looked for notable events that happened around the time of the mining pools’ sudden change of heart. In their research, they did find some correlation with “strange” occurrences. The first is an open letter from HaoBTC (now rebranded as Bixin) to the Bitcoin Core development team. The second was a rumor about a group of Chinese pools planning to end their cooperation with Bitcoin Core: the Terminator Plan.

Of course, something notable happens in Bitcoin just about every week. These events may well be coincidences and, therefore, there could be a very different explanation for the mining pools’ behavior, LaurentMT acknowledged:

“An alternative explanation could be that the different mining pools adopted new mining policies for completely different reasons. I tend to think political motivations are more likely … but that’s just a personal opinion.”

Bitcoin Magazine reached out to the seven mining pools in question. The only mining pool willing to comment on the issue was KanoCKPool, which denied being involved with any sort of manipulation or coordination, stating it just confirms “any and all transactions available.”

UPDATE: After publication of this article (and on reading the comment from Kano CK Pool), LaurentMT pointed out that Kano CK Pool, along with 1Hash and Bitclub Network, are the only pools that had been confirming some of the spam transactions even before the second half of 2016, indicating that the pool could be telling the truth.

UPDATE (2): A representative for Bixin reached out to Bitcoin Magazine to point out that the HaoBTC mining pool had only just started operations at the time when the different mining pools started including spam transactions in their blocks. He said the pool has always confirmed any paying transaction, and denies that HaoBTC (or Bixin) has taken part in any coordination across mining pools.

For a full analysis of the “Moby Dick” spam, read LaurentMT and Le Calvez’s three-part blog post series or watch Le Calvez’s presentation at Breaking Bitcoin in Paris earlier this month.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/curious-case-bitcoins-moby-dick-spam-and-miners-confirmed-it/

tomahawk9
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 588
Merit: 278


ddu-du ddu-du


View Profile
March 12, 2018, 01:32:57 PM
 #13

While it's nearly impossible to get accurate numbers, I'd like to hear what you guys think. Does international transactions (between 2 address that their owners are in different countries) cause more congestion to network? or local transactions (between 2 address that their owners live in same country).

That's an odd question, especially from a full member that registered 2 years ago. You should know by now how btc transactions work, international or local transactions have no effect whatsoever on the network.

A congestion on the Bitcoin network like the one we experienced in December is caused when there are more incoming transactions (could be spam tx's, another user already mentioned a few examples) compared to the amount of transactions that miners can pick up, this causes a bottleneck on the network which eventually leads to a massive backlog in the mempool.
Severos
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 264
Merit: 116


View Profile
March 12, 2018, 04:41:40 PM
 #14

While it's nearly impossible to get accurate numbers, I'd like to hear what you guys think. Does international transactions (between 2 address that their owners are in different countries) cause more congestion to network? or local transactions (between 2 address that their owners live in same country).

That's an odd question, especially from a full member that registered 2 years ago. You should know by now how btc transactions work, international or local transactions have no effect whatsoever on the network.

A congestion on the Bitcoin network like the one we experienced in December is caused when there are more incoming transactions (could be spam tx's, another user already mentioned a few examples) compared to the amount of transactions that miners can pick up, this causes a bottleneck on the network which eventually leads to a massive backlog in the mempool.

Check the edit, I've already said in a comment why I asked such question.
Loveboard
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 84
Merit: 7

Cointrade - Bringing crypto trading to the people!


View Profile
March 12, 2018, 08:29:34 PM
 #15

For all people above saying that geographic location doesn't matter, I know that.
Probably I've written my question in an ambiguous way, what I'm asking is, do you think the number of transactions moving funds between wallets whose owners are in different countries is more than the number of transactions moving funds between wallets whose owners are in same country.
Why that matter? if the local transactions count for more, then maybe there's a solution to reduce the number of transactions by creating a coin that runs on 2 separate chains (or more) somehow. one chain for local tx, and other for international tx, I'm still thinking of the way this would be implemented, but in theory this can reduce network congestion by creating a 'local chainS' and 'international chain'.

Dude that solution totally takes away the anonymity that crypto stands for.

Once you start having local chains of the same coin for local locations... then you start centralizing the coin. Once centralization kicks in, it will infect other aspects of the coin...

Cointrade - Bringing crypto trading to the people! (https://cointrade.es/)
Pre-ICO "April 8th, 2018"
Jet Cash
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036
Merit: 1251


I don't merit Spambies


View Profile WWW
March 12, 2018, 08:47:45 PM
 #16

I'm not sure that I understand the question. I'm running a node in England, and the first peer that I looked at is in the Netherlands. The second one is in the United States. I assume that any payment I make will be relayed to those nodes. If I use an online wallet, then that wallet could be in yet another country, and not close to me.

khaled0111
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 504
Merit: 105


NHCT (NanoHealthCare Token)A blockchain powered ec


View Profile WWW
March 12, 2018, 09:24:52 PM
 #17

Creating separate chains, one of them for local transactions (in the same country) and another one for foreign transactions is not possible because it will break the decentralization specifity.
Besides, sending a transaction to a wallet in the other side of the eart can theorically be faster than sending it to a near wallet.

▄██ NanoHealthcare Token ██▄
  ▄ A Blockchain powered ecosystem of Total Health ▄
Severos
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 264
Merit: 116


View Profile
March 13, 2018, 05:16:47 AM
 #18

I see... kind of lost the sight of decentralization while thinking of such solution  Undecided
bitcoinrays
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 381
Merit: 103


View Profile
March 13, 2018, 08:28:56 AM
 #19

While it's nearly impossible to get accurate numbers, I'd like to hear what you guys think. Does international transactions (between 2 address that their owners are in different countries) cause more congestion to network? or local transactions (between 2 address that their owners live in same country).


==============EDIT (scroll down a bit to see where I said that but no one read it.=============
For all people above saying that geographic location doesn't matter, I know that.
Probably I've written my question in an ambiguous way, what I'm asking is, do you think the number of transactions moving funds between wallets whose owners are in different countries is more than the number of transactions moving funds between wallets whose owners are in same country.
Why that matter? if the local transactions count for more, then maybe there's a solution to reduce the number of transactions by creating a coin that runs on 2 separate chains (or more) somehow. one chain for local tx, and other for international tx, I'm still thinking of the way this would be implemented, but in theory this can reduce network congestion by creating a 'local chainS' and 'international chain'.
Nope, that’s not making any sense. Bitcoin is different and is decentralized. There is nothing like country address or something… they are all the same thing and the same transaction fees applies to all. There is also nothing like an address that causes more congestion to the network then the others. All works the same.

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!