Blockchain.info - Bitcoin Block explorer & Currency Statistics

[Jouke]

/q/24hrprice * /q/totalbc  < /q/marketcap ?

[giszmo]

I just noticed, this is not yet a block-size thread. To change that, would you be so kind and make a graph of MB/block?

I have no idea if we are now at about 1% of the limit size or 90% which makes discussing the issue a bit pointless. Some say 1MB/block would allow 7 transactions per second. The number of transactions per block chart spikes at 450. 7*60*10 is 4200 which implies we are below 10% almost all the time.

[deepceleron]

I just noticed, this is not yet a block-size thread. To change that, would you be so kind and make a graph of MB/block?

It's not blockchain.info's job to make a graph that you or I can make ourselves:

[giszmo]

I just noticed, this is not yet a block-size thread. To change that, would you be so kind and make a graph of MB/block?

It's not blockchain.info's job to make a graph that you or I can make ourselves:

you and I can make all the graphs piuk does -> it's not their job to do any graphs -> you are right sir. Still it would be nice if he did.

[piuk]

I just noticed, this is not yet a block-size thread. To change that, would you be so kind and make a graph of MB/block?

I have no idea if we are now at about 1% of the limit size or 90% which makes discussing the issue a bit pointless. Some say 1MB/block would allow 7 transactions per second. The number of transactions per block chart spikes at 450. 7*60*10 is 4200 which implies we are below 10% almost all the time.

http://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size

Seems we are not close to the limit yet. Btw I haven't forgot about the other charts.

[giszmo]

I just noticed, this is not yet a block-size thread. To change that, would you be so kind and make a graph of MB/block?

I have no idea if we are now at about 1% of the limit size or 90% which makes discussing the issue a bit pointless. Some say 1MB/block would allow 7 transactions per second. The number of transactions per block chart spikes at 450. 7*60*10 is 4200 which implies we are below 10% almost all the time.

http://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size

Seems we are not close to the limit yet. Btw I haven't forgot about the other charts.

So this is the daily average block size I assume? Thanks a lot!

I feel like asking to much every time I ask for a chart but I guess you implemented most of them so far, so let me suggest one more:

"Weighted average age of bitcoins spent"
The bitcoin years destroyed graphs give an idea when more or less old coins were moved but they don't tell if just many coins moved or if old coins moved. A first step to improve that would be to normalize these charts by dividing by the total coins moved in that block or day.
The weighted average age of bitcoins would directly have time in the y-axis so the user could easily interpret swings as new coins spent vs. old coins spent.
I know you didn't do graphs with multiple lines yet but for me this graph would be most interesting with lines not only for the average but for more quantiles.

[organofcorti]

If you (or anyone else) want new charts made urgently (before piuk has time) and if you can can point me to an API, I'll make them for you. Non interactive, and non-updating, but it will give you an idea if it's what you really want before asking piuk to do it for you.

[dooglus]

http://blockchain.info/charts/blocks-size shows that the current blockchain size is 5167 MB.



By my calculations it's in fact around 5648 MB.

How is the size calculated for that chart?

Edit: I just added up the individual block sizes:

block 0 is 285 bytes
block 1 is 215 bytes
block 2 is 215 bytes
...
block 222965 is 224276 bytes
block 222966 is 128148 bytes
block 222967 is 202536 bytes

and got a grand total of 5,921,583,854 bytes for the first 222,968 blocks.  That's 5,647.26 MB.

[molecular]

If you (or anyone else) want new charts made urgently (before piuk has time) and if you can can point me to an API, I'll make them for you. Non interactive, and non-updating, but it will give you an idea if it's what you really want before asking piuk to do it for you.

interestingly I've just been thinking about your "difficulty follow price models". I guess it's too early or they don't work well currently because of the tech change?

[organofcorti]

If you (or anyone else) want new charts made urgently (before piuk has time) and if you can can point me to an API, I'll make them for you. Non interactive, and non-updating, but it will give you an idea if it's what you really want before asking piuk to do it for you.

interestingly I've just been thinking about your "difficulty follow price models". I guess it's too early or they don't work well currently because of the tech change?

PM'd you since this is a bit OT.

[Stephen Gornick]

How is the size calculated for that chart?

I don't have the source but if I remember correctly the size on the chart was just the raw block data, not the headers and not the index.

[zebedee]

Ben - any chance of adding block fees paid to the columns on the main page?  At present I have to click through each block to see, which increases load on your site and takes ages.  I think block fees is more interesting to people in general than some of the other columns, such as total sent, which is a guess.

[hazek]

Yeah, it means the bitcoins that were only issued and not moved since. All the bitcoins that moved since their issuance you plot on the graph when they must the last time.

Or in other words: The coinbase transaction creates coins at a certain block chain height. Every other transaction moves them to a new block chain height.

block 100: coinbase 50Ƀ -> A (add 50Ƀ to "100")
block 200: 50Ƀ of A -> 29Ƀ to A, 10Ƀ to B, 10Ƀ to C (ignore input to A, B, C, fee. Just remove 50Ƀ from "100" and add them to "200")
block 300: 10Ƀ of B -> X, Y (Move the 10Ƀ of B from "200" to "300")

Ok I understand I'll try and add the chart this weekend.

Please, don't forget this one

[k]

While we're asking for new charts.

Would it be feasible to have a Bitcoin Days Destroyed (Filtered By Min Age X) - where X is user defined? even by changing the query in the address bar if you don't want to add another link. Or if not perhaps add a filter for 2 years, 3 years? Interested to see if older coins are moving. The chart Hazek is asking for will also be useful for this.

Another possibly interesting statistic would be oldest coins moved per day. Maybe interesting, maybe not but would be curious to see.

thanks

[Seal]

I just posted a ticket #2150 about a receive payments api limitation. (to a certain domain name not being allowed)

I noticed in the API Documentation you had the following return for Generating Receiving Addresses:

Code:

RESPONSE: APPLICATION/JSON
{
    "fee_percent":0,
    "destination":"1A8JiWcwvpY7tAopUkSnGuEYHmzGYfZPiq",
    "input_address":"1KZoUuPWFAeyVySHAGqvTUDoX6P3ntuLNF",
    "callback_url":"http://yoururl.com"
}

What is the fee_percent for? Do you intend to start charging for this service at some point?

[BurtW]

piuk, why did you remove the anon send function?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=147176.0;topicseen

[hazek]

piuk, why did you remove the anon send function?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=147176.0;topicseen

I am interested in this as well.

[Stephen Gornick]

Here is a transaction that was one Satoshi for input, one Satoshi output and obviously then, no fee.
 - https://blockchain.info/tx/1064fedccbb1225d6879c79a58e59cda795d4023da140f2ad0bc4c189e5e373f

It never made it into a block.  It was sent via Blockchain.info/wallet I'm told.  It doesn't have an invalid input (double spend), so I would presume the Blockchain.info back-end bitcoin daemon would keep trying to re-broadcast the transaction with it not being included in any blocks.  

Then recently that transaction output was used in a new spend transaction:
 - https://blockchain.info/tx/bfe3df19956eabd8c1b87bf1cde1a1526abb80a9bf3320ee838c05edd4a1138f

Of course, this new transaction won't confirm because one of the inputs hasn't confirmed.   But since that earlier transaction isn't still being re-broadcast (persumably, maybe it is but no nodes it is connected to will relay it) then no miners will ever include the earlier transaction and this transaction will never confirm as well.  But that leaves the Blockchain.info/wallet user stuck -- the Blockchain.info/wallet see those 512+ BTC as being spent and won't let the user spend them in a new transaction.

What methods to resolve this are available?

[Edit: Here's the thread with the request for assistance:

512 btc in a transaction that will never confirm, need help
 - http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=147519.0 ]

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

I just posted a ticket #2150 about a receive payments api limitation. (to a certain domain name not being allowed)

I noticed in the API Documentation you had the following return for Generating Receiving Addresses:

Code:

RESPONSE: APPLICATION/JSON
{
    "fee_percent":0,
    "destination":"1A8JiWcwvpY7tAopUkSnGuEYHmzGYfZPiq",
    "input_address":"1KZoUuPWFAeyVySHAGqvTUDoX6P3ntuLNF",
    "callback_url":"http://yoururl.com"
}

What is the fee_percent for? Do you intend to start charging for this service at some point?

That is if you enabled anonymous payments.

[ingrownpocket]

I'm having problems using sendmany -> https://blockchain.info/api/json_rpc_api.

Nvm, I had insufficient funds.