Transaction queue backed up, why the pool limit under 1mb?

[rogue13]

Pick any transaction out of blockchan.info's latest transaction list and look how big the queue is right now. Has this happened before?
edit: New example: https://blockchain.info/tx/0d6d39a612e0b1d44fd21619f616e318bfbe8446b91d3f3752cae284e06e71cb

[1714469597]

1714469597

[1714469597]

1714469597

[1714469597]

1714469597

[1714469597]

1714469597

[1714469597]

1714469597

[1714469597]

1714469597

[bionicghost]

Is this why my transaction still has no confirmations?
Edit: oh, yes it is. Just 36 hours...

[wxg10]

Some choking going on? It took 30 min. to find block Block #270378.

[rogue13]

and none of the miners are making blocks bigger than 1/4-1/2 MB

[bionicghost]

about 556 transactions per block at the moment

[dexX7]

Bitcoin reached it's first soft limit - the block size limit. It's actually 1 mb, but for whatever reason some pools set it to 0.25 mb or 0.5 mb.

[rogue13]

As far as my current understanding goes of bitcoin, I can not understand why they choose block size limits under the 1mb protocol limit. Right now it is proving to be a problem, so why keep it so low?

[enquirer]

how they decide which trnasaction to include into the block? they sort by fee size/tx size?

[Fuserleer]

Yet I got ridiculed for apparently claiming that BTC couldn't handle high volumes required to go truly mainstream.....this isn't even CLOSE....but I "didn't understand" 

[Foxpup]

Miners using the Satoshi client will stop adding transactions to a block once the block hits 250kB, except for transactions paying more than double the minimum fee (how much more depends entirely on how full the block is), under the theory that larger blocks take longer to broadcast, and therefore have a higher chance of being orphaned, and so extra fees are required to compensate for this. Remember, the minimum fee is just that: the minimum. Pay more fees if you want faster confirmations.

[franky1]

all of you using blockchain.info wallets. vanity addresses or simply an address that has been reused. please thank Luke JR for the delays

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=334316.0

it is also worth noting that the poll has been formed to trick people into agreeing. if you disagree call luke an idiot or say "if its from luke it cant be good.( the red choices):

You're an idiot, don't do this!   - 97 (41.6%)
I don't like this, but I agree we need to move forward with it.   - 21 (9%)
We should have waited longer, but I guess it needs to move forward now.   - 20 (8.6%)
Great, it's about time!   - 36 (15.5%)
You're a hero, let's get this deployed everywhere ASAP!   - 43 (18.5%)
If it's from Luke, it can't be any good.   - 16 (6.9%)

its been said in this message https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=334316.msg3606605#msg3606605
that the "i dont like this" and "we should have waited longer" are also responses that in the end agree to the delays...

and as a separate consensus in other conversations that the only true disagree to protocol statements (red choices) look to be personal vendetta's against luke thus should not really count, meaning its all designed to force a yes vote

[bionicghost]

From what i understood, the delays happen to reused adresses. Then why did my transaction to a newly opened localbitcoins account took 13 hours to confirm?