Impaler
Sr. Member
![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif) ![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif) ![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif)
Offline
Activity: 826
Merit: 250
CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 16, 2013, 04:09:11 AM |
|
The way I see it their are three possible sources for the recent change.
1) One or more of the large mining pools has changed how it mines recently 2) The transactions mix has radically, changed such as a very high volume of 0 fee transactions being attempted recently 3) The network communications have been disrupted in some way such that transactions are taking longer to reach miners
My naive guess is that the Chinese have 'discovered' that the transaction fee is optional and one of their trading sites/forums etc has caused a massive increase in 0 fee transactions being attempted. If this is the case then they will probably only take a few more days of slowness for them to realize that the fee isn't so optional and they will cut it out. If it's something else then it may be the new normal.
|
|
|
|
chriswilmer (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1008
Merit: 1000
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 16, 2013, 04:19:37 AM |
|
The way I see it their are three possible sources for the recent change.
1) One or more of the large mining pools has changed how it mines recently 2) The transactions mix has radically, changed such as a very high volume of 0 fee transactions being attempted recently 3) The network communications have been disrupted in some way such that transactions are taking longer to reach miners
My naive guess is that the Chinese have 'discovered' that the transaction fee is optional and one of their trading sites/forums etc has caused a massive increase in 0 fee transactions being attempted. If this is the case then they will probably only take a few more days of slowness for them to realize that the fee isn't so optional and they will cut it out. If it's something else then it may be the new normal.
+3 ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif) Well, in any case, now that people are starting to feel the pain of slower transaction confirmations it will be interesting to see how both miners and users respond (who will give first... the miners by creating larger blocks, as D&T pointed out, or the users [who care about tx confirmation times in the first place] by paying higher fees).
|
|
|
|
Foxpup
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4466
Merit: 3089
Vile Vixen and Miss Bitcointalk 2021-2023
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 16, 2013, 05:12:32 AM |
|
That is a flawed understanding of the fee rules. High priority txs have no required fee, none. As in 0 satsohis. This applies regardless if a block is 1MB in size.
The min mandatory fees FOR LOW PRIORITY TXS are designed as a denial of service prevention mechanism. They are only enforced at the client level. Even if miners follow those they have absolutely no effect on high priority txs.
I don't think this is correct. Under the Satoshi client's fee rules (which as I understand are enforced by most, but certainly not all, miners), high priority transactions with no fees will only be included in the first 27 kB of a block (this limit can be changed with the blockprioritysize option). Once the block hits this limit, only fee-paying transactions will be included, regardless of priority. Lastly the rules aren't enforced at the protocol level. Miners an build any valid block they want by using custom bitcoind. This is hardly beyond the capabilities of a major pool (all are using custom nodes already). It is possible to have a block contain NOTHING but no fee txs (as in ~2,400 of them) and the block is still valid.
True, but hardly relevant unless a significant fraction of miners are using non-standard fee rules. A few do (which is the only reason transactions paying insufficient fees are ever confirmed at all), but I'm pretty sure most do not.
|
Will pretend to do unspeakable things (while actually eating a taco) for bitcoins: 1K6d1EviQKX3SVKjPYmJGyWBb1avbmCFM4I am not on the scammers' paradise known as Telegram! Do not believe anyone claiming to be me off-forum without a signed message from the above address! Accept no excuses and make no exceptions!
|
|
|
phelix
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1020
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 16, 2013, 09:10:44 AM Last edit: November 16, 2013, 05:06:01 PM by phelix |
|
That is a flawed understanding of the fee rules. High priority txs have no required fee, none. As in 0 satsohis. This applies regardless if a block is 1MB in size.
The min mandatory fees FOR LOW PRIORITY TXS are designed as a denial of service prevention mechanism. They are only enforced at the client level. Even if miners follow those they have absolutely no effect on high priority txs.
I don't think this is correct. Under the Satoshi client's fee rules (which as I understand are enforced by most, but certainly not all, miners), high priority transactions with no fees will only be included in the first 27 kB of a block (this limit can be changed with the blockprioritysize option). Once the block hits this limit, only fee-paying transactions will be included, regardless of priority. this - as can be seen in the code above (v0.8.5) Blocks are not getting full, average block size is 100 - 150kb at the moment from what I see in the last couple of blocks. This means there probably are more zero fee TXs than what can fit into the 27kb area of blocks. edit: it's the weekend, so maybe blocks really are becoming large. Average block size comes somewhat close to 250k: http://blockchain.info/de/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=60days&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=
|
|
|
|
dserrano5
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1974
Merit: 1029
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 16, 2013, 10:36:57 AM |
|
That is a flawed understanding of the fee rules. High priority txs have no required fee, none. As in 0 satsohis. This applies regardless if a block is 1MB in size.
The min mandatory fees FOR LOW PRIORITY TXS are designed as a denial of service prevention mechanism. They are only enforced at the client level. Even if miners follow those they have absolutely no effect on high priority txs.
I don't think this is correct. Under the Satoshi client's fee rules (which as I understand are enforced by most, but certainly not all, miners), high priority transactions with no fees will only be included in the first 27 kB of a block (this limit can be changed with the blockprioritysize option). Once the block hits this limit, only fee-paying transactions will be included, regardless of priority. FWIW all my transactions are high priority ones and I've observed a steep increase in confirmation times, going up to nine hours in some cases, when their priority reaches several thousand million.
|
|
|
|
afrustrum
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 17
Merit: 0
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 16, 2013, 02:51:51 PM |
|
Not sure if this sheds any light on the block size effects of various pools, but here is a recent snapshot of blocks. What I do not understand is how the Eligius miner created such a small block when there were over 1200 unconfirmed transactions in the mem pool. Direct link: https://i.imgur.com/S29IMDg.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/S29IMDg.png
|
|
|
|
chriswilmer (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1008
Merit: 1000
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 16, 2013, 02:53:35 PM |
|
That is a flawed understanding of the fee rules. High priority txs have no required fee, none. As in 0 satsohis. This applies regardless if a block is 1MB in size.
The min mandatory fees FOR LOW PRIORITY TXS are designed as a denial of service prevention mechanism. They are only enforced at the client level. Even if miners follow those they have absolutely no effect on high priority txs.
I don't think this is correct. Under the Satoshi client's fee rules (which as I understand are enforced by most, but certainly not all, miners), high priority transactions with no fees will only be included in the first 27 kB of a block (this limit can be changed with the blockprioritysize option). Once the block hits this limit, only fee-paying transactions will be included, regardless of priority. FWIW all my transactions are high priority ones and I've observed a steep increase in confirmation times, going up to nine hours in some cases, when their priority reaches several thousand million. Interesting!
|
|
|
|
niothor
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 16, 2013, 03:05:22 PM |
|
Well threshold would imply some sort of cental block planning agency. Various miners have various different block parameters. Tx volume is higher than the block size being created by the various parameters currently used by various miners. Some miners target larger blocks, some target smaller ones, a couple seem to include nothing but the coinbase tx. Collectively all miners have a certain tx throughput which is less than the tx volume and the limit imposed by the 1MB cap.
Miners can either expand the # of tx they include in blocks OR Users can collectively reduce tx volume OR The backlog will grow
For the time being a way to put yourself at the front of the line is to pay a tx fee but that won't reduce/eliminate the backlog it will just ensure your tx has a higher chance of going first.
I really hope this will never happen , but let's say that in case number of transactions grows and it starts putting pressure on the limit of the block IF , the miners don't agree to raising the limits of the block but to raise the fee in order to discourage micropayments .....wouldn't we end up with something like... banks?
|
|
|
|
laowai80
Member
![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif)
Offline
Activity: 98
Merit: 10
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 16, 2013, 03:16:46 PM |
|
IF , the miners don't agree to raising the limits of the block but to raise the fee in order to discourage micropayments .....wouldn't we end up with something like... banks?
That's exactly one of the reasons why we need competition in crypto currencies and relying just on bitcoin is a single point of failure. Monopolizing the network together with greed can easily lead to abuse. Human nature is the same at all times, no matter what noble cause there was in the beginning, people more often than not tend to lean to their own selfish ways, and check points and counter-balances need to be in place.
|
|
|
|
Barek
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 16, 2013, 03:38:26 PM |
|
As long as transaction with reasonable fee are processed in a timely manner all is good.
Miners are the heart of Bitcoin. Higher mining profits directly improve the infrastructure. A couple of cents in fees are hardly much, considering that transaction will be stored on thousands of computers forever.
What we really need is a method to add fees to a transaction, ideally through an extra transaction, so that merchants (or anyone else) could hurry a transaction.
|
|
|
|
BitchicksHusband
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 16, 2013, 04:16:23 PM |
|
Why aren't the transactions just sorted and filled? The miners could take the most fees they could fit in the block and then fill the rest with free ones up to the limit ordered by priority.
|
1BitcHiCK1iRa6YVY6qDqC6M594RBYLNPo
|
|
|
Barek
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 16, 2013, 04:29:41 PM |
|
Why aren't the transactions just sorted and filled? The miners could take the most fees they could fit in the block and then fill the rest with free ones up to the limit ordered by priority.
Then hardly anyone would pay fees, which can't be in the miner's interest.
|
|
|
|
safeminer
Member
![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif)
Offline
Activity: 110
Merit: 10
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 16, 2013, 04:30:58 PM |
|
cant this be caused by mastercoin stuffing everyblock with useless information with their crap-r-col
|
|
|
|
Barek
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 16, 2013, 04:46:02 PM |
|
cant this be caused by mastercoin stuffing everyblock with useless information with their crap-r-col
Possible that they are reacting to some sort of transaction DOS "attack". Someone could just be creating a massive amount of no-fee transactions. While there is not much to be done against that, accepting only transactions with fees allows "legitimate" transactions to be processed, while it keeps the others in check.
|
|
|
|
MoonShadow
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1010
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 16, 2013, 11:37:28 PM |
|
Well threshold would imply some sort of cental block planning agency. Various miners have various different block parameters. Tx volume is higher than the block size being created by the various parameters currently used by various miners. Some miners target larger blocks, some target smaller ones, a couple seem to include nothing but the coinbase tx. Collectively all miners have a certain tx throughput which is less than the tx volume and the limit imposed by the 1MB cap.
Miners can either expand the # of tx they include in blocks OR Users can collectively reduce tx volume OR The backlog will grow
For the time being a way to put yourself at the front of the line is to pay a tx fee but that won't reduce/eliminate the backlog it will just ensure your tx has a higher chance of going first.
I really hope this will never happen , but let's say that in case number of transactions grows and it starts putting pressure on the limit of the block IF , the miners don't agree to raising the limits of the block but to raise the fee in order to discourage micropayments .....wouldn't we end up with something like... banks? Some people will prefer banking institutions anyway, althouth they wouldn't function quite the same. But no, we don't need to go there. Another solution is overlay networks, online wallet sites that agree to delayed settlement, mass transactions, blockchain contracts, etc. There are a lot of ways to move the burden of transactions off of the main network (that the protocol supports) than the obvious general rule today that all transactions are recorded on the blockchain individually and in a near term. Many to many transactions is one method of reducing the absolute number of transactions, for example.
|
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
|
|
|
p2pbucks
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 17, 2013, 12:18:48 AM |
|
Are Miners rejecting Mastercoin tx now ? Since They are insisting on larger fees instead of zero fees . I dont understand MSC , just guess . Check the tx from the 1Exodus address
|
|
|
|
User705
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 896
Merit: 1006
First 100% Liquid Stablecoin Backed by Gold
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 17, 2013, 12:36:26 AM |
|
Could it be that solo-miners are perhaps thinking mining empty blocks gives a higher odds % to solve blocks?
|
|
|
|
C. Bergmann
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 17, 2013, 12:43:32 AM |
|
hei... i am no friend of fees ... today i had a talk with someone working for a company making statistics for payments. he told me this. paying with ec in europe we have two options . pin or signature. signature is very insecure, pin costs one euro each transaction. yes. one euro. the companys job is to make complicated statistics when its better to accept pin or sign .... in short. even with thirty minutes confir!ation time and fees btc is far more effectivw than banking.
|
| Gabro | | ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ | | | | ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ | ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ WHITEPAPER ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ TOKEN SALES ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ |
|
|
|
franky1
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4326
Merit: 4644
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 17, 2013, 12:49:33 AM |
|
Not sure if this sheds any light on the block size effects of various pools, but here is a recent snapshot of blocks. What I do not understand is how the Eligius miner created such a small block when there were over 1200 unconfirmed transactions in the mem pool. Direct link: https://i.imgur.com/S29IMDg.pngthis will shed some light on eligius https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=334316.0and this is my explaination to the delay its causes https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=334316.msg3605784#msg3605784
|
I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER. Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
|
|
|
Impaler
Sr. Member
![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif) ![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif) ![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif)
Offline
Activity: 826
Merit: 250
CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 17, 2013, 01:31:34 AM |
|
It looks like it was #1 (Miners are mining differently), frankly I think it's a stupid idea too, it looks like people are raising a stink about it and it will be reverted shortly.
|
|
|
|
|