Any idea when the Bitcoin Mempool will stop being so congested?

[tranthidung]

It is partially true, witcher_sense. 

Greed and lack of knowledge then experience cause all of such.

• Bitcoin total supply is fixed and I believe most of bitcoin investors know about that.
• It is interesting to see many people are misled by news that "Bitcoin is scarce (because of its finite supply)". Such news mostly are seeded repeatedly when whales manipulate the market.
• Lack of knowledge and experience force people to join fee race. Many people called them as bitcoin investors but don't know what is confirmation, what is txhash and I don't feel strange if those people give their bitcoin to exchanges to broadcast and charge high fees.

[20kevin20]

I'm not very sure how legit the following information is, but as far as I know, the mempool would be way less congested and tx fees would be so much cheaper if all of us turned to SegWit. I have checked the stats about how many % of the transactions are done without it and it was significant. A lot of people don't even have any idea of its existence. If I'm wrong, of course, someone please correct me.

[davis196]

The only thing we could do is to wait.
Sooner or later,the congested mempool will cause many traders to stop buying,thus reducing the demand for Bitcoins.The support for a price above 13K USD will drop,so the price will drop as well,due to the many traders starting to sell their BTC and cashing the profits.
When the BTC price goes below 10K,the Bitcoin Core blockchain will be free and transaction count will go down.This is just my suggestion.

[stompix]

The only thing i can tell you is that anybody who gives you a precise answer to your question is probably guessing...

There's no way of telling how long it'll take before we see <10sat/vbyte fees again... In 2018 the optimal fee was >10sat/vbyte for multiple months... This time it could be for a couple of days, a couple of weeks, a couple of months... Or even longer.

I'm willing to bet that it's going to be somewhere 1-2 days after :

Next Retarget (earliest):   Monday at 10:10 PM  (in 3d 6h 53m 4s)
Next Retarget (latest):   Tuesday at 12:33 AM  (in 3d 9h 15m 33s)

24h stats Blocks:118
That's 26 fewer blocks in the last 24 hours, enough to clean 1/3 of the mempool at this point, one full day and we would be at around 30sat+.

I'm not very sure how legit the following information is, but as far as I know, the mempool would be way less congested and tx fees would be so much cheaper if all of us turned to SegWit. I have checked the stats about how many % of the transactions are done without it and it was significant. A lot of people don't even have any idea of its existence. If I'm wrong, of course, someone please correct me.

Yeah, segwit only has somewhere between 40-45% percent but that alone would not be enough for cases like this or for the future, imagine doubling usage, even with segwit it won't be possible, the solution is to move to a second layer, but that at this point seems ten times harder for new users than simply using bitcoin, and for most people out there even this is quite a hurdle.

[hatshepsut93]

When the price will stabilize or even fall a little bit, there will be less trading activity, which is the primary contributor towards congestion/high fees. And no one can predict Bitcoin's price, maybe we are now going to witness more and more growth until a new ATH and the top of the bubble forms, or maybe we'll again experience some stagnation/stability.

What you should learn from this is that you should use the time when fees are low to consolidate your funds, move to SegWit addresses, withdraw funds from centralized services, so you'll have lower fees in times like these.

[pooya87]

looking at the past 4 days of mempool in size (not in count) shows that there is still a slight growth in the size of the memepool seen on Johoe's tool. it indicates that we can't expect mempool "clearing" in the immediate future. but it also shows that the growth has been slowed down a little so the "clearing" shouldn't take that long.
additionally the bitcoin price rise has slowed down by becoming stable around $13500, if this continues we may initially see another spike (day traders may pull out and go to shitcoin pumping) and then the size shrinks. since we are close to weekend, it could contribute to it too.

[tranthidung]

looking at the past 4 days of mempool in size (not in count) shows that there is still a slight growth in the size of the memepool seen on Johoe's tool. it indicates that we can't expect mempool "clearing" in the immediate future. but it also shows that the growth has been slowed down a little so the "clearing" shouldn't take that long.
additionally the bitcoin price rise has slowed down by becoming stable around $13500, if this continues we may initially see another spike (day traders may pull out and go to shitcoin pumping) and then the size shrinks. since we are close to weekend, it could contribute to it too.

Data was imported on 29 October 2020 (ends at block #654708), not recently but the plot shows time points at which mempool was clear sometimes in October. Whenever the p25 value of daily block size falls back to below 1 MB, mempool has chances to get clearer.

I made a typo in plot title: The period is 01 Oct 2020 - 29 Oct 2020.

All-time and 2020 plots

[Wind_FURY]

Or with that reply, are you simply trolling?

I think I understand how Bitcoin works very well, I don't need you to certify a degree for me to acknowledge my level of understanding of how Bitcoin works - I had a very simple question in this thread which was referring to the high fees and the mempool, and I saw no other thread about this in this forum, at least not recently - assuming most people are happy to pay high fees - but I'm not ... I took the initiative to ask "what's going on" and got some nice information here ... you seem to turn this into a personal attack.

I don't know you and I am not interested in knowing your opinion, if you have a minor issue with this thread you don't have to respond nor be an *** about it.

I believe you don't truly understand, because if you truly did, you wouldn't be compaining in a way that is unconstructive.

Bitcoin is slow, and inefficient because maintaining the network's censorship-resistance/decentralization - it's main value proposition, and making it scale out is HARD. The Core developers don't have the power to bend the laws of Physics.

[hv_]

Or with that reply, are you simply trolling?

I think I understand how Bitcoin works very well, I don't need you to certify a degree for me to acknowledge my level of understanding of how Bitcoin works - I had a very simple question in this thread which was referring to the high fees and the mempool, and I saw no other thread about this in this forum, at least not recently - assuming most people are happy to pay high fees - but I'm not ... I took the initiative to ask "what's going on" and got some nice information here ... you seem to turn this into a personal attack.

I don't know you and I am not interested in knowing your opinion, if you have a minor issue with this thread you don't have to respond nor be an *** about it.

I believe you don't truly understand, because if you truly did, you wouldn't be compaining in a way that is unconstructive.

Bitcoin is slow, and inefficient because maintaining the network's censorship-resistance/decentralization - it's main value proposition, and making it scale out is HARD. The Core developers don't have the power to bend the laws of Physics.

Nope, there is no such decentralization... that is only twitter based brain wash args by core / Blockstream

Clean Bitcoin works with unlimited block size like a champ. Segwit, LN, ... whatever was just a brutal attack. Now ppl pay the price

[Get-Paid.com]

I believe you don't truly understand, because if you truly did, you wouldn't be compaining in a way that is unconstructive.

Why are you taking it into a personal level if we make a claim that Bitcoin is centralized and not decentralized?
You might be a Bitcoin fan or love it the way it is but if you can't accept criticism that is your problem and not ours.

[BlackFor3st]

There is no correct answer to your question if I were to give my opinion because the fees will likely to go down if there will be less transactions that were being processed
and there will be less congestion in the mempool.

Those are the cases that can bring the bitcoin fees back to normal but if there will more transactions that keeps on coming and there will be more transactions that were being
congested in the mempool because of less transaction fees then there is no exact prediction if when will be the bitcoin mempool will stop being so congested. The only thing that
you can do as of now is to have a close monitoring about the bitcoin fees and just do your transaction once you can see that the fees are decreasing or it is in the level where you
can already afford the fees.

[Wind_FURY]

Or with that reply, are you simply trolling?

I think I understand how Bitcoin works very well, I don't need you to certify a degree for me to acknowledge my level of understanding of how Bitcoin works - I had a very simple question in this thread which was referring to the high fees and the mempool, and I saw no other thread about this in this forum, at least not recently - assuming most people are happy to pay high fees - but I'm not ... I took the initiative to ask "what's going on" and got some nice information here ... you seem to turn this into a personal attack.

I don't know you and I am not interested in knowing your opinion, if you have a minor issue with this thread you don't have to respond nor be an *** about it.

I believe you don't truly understand, because if you truly did, you wouldn't be compaining in a way that is unconstructive.

Bitcoin is slow, and inefficient because maintaining the network's censorship-resistance/decentralization - it's main value proposition, and making it scale out is HARD. The Core developers don't have the power to bend the laws of Physics.

Nope, there is no such decentralization... that is only twitter based brain wash args by core / Blockstream

Easy to say for you, but have never provided valid proof.

Clean Bitcoin works with unlimited block size like a champ. Segwit, LN, ... whatever was just a brutal attack. Now ppl pay the price

Like the centralized shitcoin forked from Bitcoin Cash called Bitcoin Cash BSV? OK.

I believe you don't truly understand, because if you truly did, you wouldn't be compaining in a way that is unconstructive.

Why are you taking it into a personal level if we make a claim that Bitcoin is centralized and not decentralized?
You might be a Bitcoin fan or love it the way it is but if you can't accept criticism that is your problem and not ours.

I'm not taking it to a personal level. It just saying if you truly understood. I'm also not trying to insult you.

I listen to the criticsm, and be willing to debate why the basis of it is wrong.

In your opinion, what should the Core Developers do to fix the problem.

[hv_]

Or with that reply, are you simply trolling?

I think I understand how Bitcoin works very well, I don't need you to certify a degree for me to acknowledge my level of understanding of how Bitcoin works - I had a very simple question in this thread which was referring to the high fees and the mempool, and I saw no other thread about this in this forum, at least not recently - assuming most people are happy to pay high fees - but I'm not ... I took the initiative to ask "what's going on" and got some nice information here ... you seem to turn this into a personal attack.

I don't know you and I am not interested in knowing your opinion, if you have a minor issue with this thread you don't have to respond nor be an *** about it.

I believe you don't truly understand, because if you truly did, you wouldn't be compaining in a way that is unconstructive.

Bitcoin is slow, and inefficient because maintaining the network's censorship-resistance/decentralization - it's main value proposition, and making it scale out is HARD. The Core developers don't have the power to bend the laws of Physics.

Nope, there is no such decentralization... that is only twitter based brain wash args by core / Blockstream

Easy to say for you, but have never provided valid proof.

Clean Bitcoin works with unlimited block size like a champ. Segwit, LN, ... whatever was just a brutal attack. Now ppl pay the price

Like the centralized shitcoin forked from Bitcoin Cash called Bitcoin Cash BSV? OK.

I believe you don't truly understand, because if you truly did, you wouldn't be compaining in a way that is unconstructive.

Why are you taking it into a personal level if we make a claim that Bitcoin is centralized and not decentralized?
You might be a Bitcoin fan or love it the way it is but if you can't accept criticism that is your problem and not ours.

I'm not taking it to a personal level. It just saying if you truly understood. I'm also not trying to insult you.

I listen to the criticsm, and be willing to debate why the basis of it is wrong.

In your opinion, what should the Core Developers do to fix the problem.

Proof:

High fees, limited capacity, CORE devs forking the protocol (for what reasons ever)  -> THIS is centralized (planning / usage) - and no longer Bitcoin

[Wind_FURY]

Or with that reply, are you simply trolling?

I think I understand how Bitcoin works very well, I don't need you to certify a degree for me to acknowledge my level of understanding of how Bitcoin works - I had a very simple question in this thread which was referring to the high fees and the mempool, and I saw no other thread about this in this forum, at least not recently - assuming most people are happy to pay high fees - but I'm not ... I took the initiative to ask "what's going on" and got some nice information here ... you seem to turn this into a personal attack.

I don't know you and I am not interested in knowing your opinion, if you have a minor issue with this thread you don't have to respond nor be an *** about it.

I believe you don't truly understand, because if you truly did, you wouldn't be compaining in a way that is unconstructive.

Bitcoin is slow, and inefficient because maintaining the network's censorship-resistance/decentralization - it's main value proposition, and making it scale out is HARD. The Core developers don't have the power to bend the laws of Physics.

Nope, there is no such decentralization... that is only twitter based brain wash args by core / Blockstream

Easy to say for you, but have never provided valid proof.

Clean Bitcoin works with unlimited block size like a champ. Segwit, LN, ... whatever was just a brutal attack. Now ppl pay the price

Like the centralized shitcoin forked from Bitcoin Cash called Bitcoin Cash BSV? OK.

I believe you don't truly understand, because if you truly did, you wouldn't be compaining in a way that is unconstructive.

Why are you taking it into a personal level if we make a claim that Bitcoin is centralized and not decentralized?
You might be a Bitcoin fan or love it the way it is but if you can't accept criticism that is your problem and not ours.

I'm not taking it to a personal level. It just saying if you truly understood. I'm also not trying to insult you.

I listen to the criticsm, and be willing to debate why the basis of it is wrong.

In your opinion, what should the Core Developers do to fix the problem.

Proof:

High fees, limited capacity,

How is that proof that makes the network technically centralized? Newbies want to know.

 CORE devs forking the protocol (for what reasons ever)  -> THIS is centralized (planning / usage) - and no longer Bitcoin

What "fork" did the Core Developers do? Newbies also want to know.

[GGUL]

Nope, there is no such decentralization... that is only twitter based brain wash args by core / Blockstream

Easy to say for you, but have never provided valid proof.

Just as there is no valid proof that increasing the block necessarily leads to centralization. 

But we have excellent proff that the current block size leads to centralization for users.

Millions of new users can't use the blockchain because they simply don't fit in. And to use bitcoin, they must cooperate with custodial services. They have no other option. Coinbase, with 25 million users, demonstrates this perfectly. 25 million !!! This means that half, or even more than half of users, use bitcoin through a centralized service.

Bitcoin is turning into a network of "bitcoin banks", where users trust their funds to them, and the blockchain for transfers is mainly used by"banks".

[20kevin20]

Yeah, segwit only has somewhere between 40-45% percent but that alone would not be enough for cases like this or for the future, imagine doubling usage, even with segwit it won't be possible, the solution is to move to a second layer, but that at this point seems ten times harder for new users than simply using bitcoin, and for most people out there even this is quite a hurdle.

Well, I guess something will need to be done at one point. The usage will inevitably increase anyway, especially at the market expands and Bitcoin matures. By second layer, do you mean LN? Would that be a working solution that could work at a large scale while also preserving the main aspects of Bitcoin, such as decentralization?

[Lucius]

The fees are so high, this is terrible:

A simple question for you: When will you learn how Bitcoin works? I'm asking you a question because every time you have to pay a slightly higher fee you open a thread like this.

You sent a transaction 45 minutes ago with a fee of 103 Sat/B which according to bitcoinfees.earn.com - this should take no more than 25 minutes to confirm, and nonetheless despite you paid a large fee and more than the recommended fee amount - it's still unconfirmed:
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/850eddd1551126e2af94c82c57890c75f4c7377a901863b56d071ba7c5bd09d7
Bitcoin will never be instant, and that's why people won't use it long term. In our dynamic world things need to be fast and instant.

There is always a way to pay a lower fee and speed up your transaction, but some just don't want to learn and adapt to the moment - living with the idea that a transaction must always cost a maximum of $0.10 is completely wrong. Bitcoin is not immune to what we would call supply and demand, in the context of transaction verification.

[GGUL]

Just as there is no valid proof that increasing the block necessarily leads to centralization.  

Just imagine if you need million dollar to run a node and only bank/huge pool can run it

P.S. i don't disagree with block increase as long as hobby user/enthusiasm can run a node with reasonable cost.

1. You did not provide proof about a million dollars on the node. So, it looks like FUD.
2. Now no one is demanding to increase the block to 10-100GB.
3. It will be cheaper for me to keep a node with a 10MB block than to pay$ 10 per transaction.
Do not increase the 1MB block, because it will save users money - this is a BIG LIE from the Core developer.
4.The fact that the node will be held by someone else, there is nothing wrong. 99% of users work this way now. Because a non-mining node can't harm the user in any way. After all, the user has the private keys. This is in any case better than working through Coinbase.

But we have excellent proff that the current block size leads to centralization for users.

Millions of new users can't use the blockchain because they simply don't fit in. And to use bitcoin, they must cooperate with custodial services. They have no other option. Coinbase, with 25 million users, demonstrates this perfectly. 25 million !!! This means that half, or even more than half of users, use bitcoin through a centralized service.

Do you forget side-chain, off-chain and tokenization?

"Do not increase the block, because this leads to centralization.  "
and
"Go to another sidechain, or tokens on another blockchain, where there will be millions of transactions, which means there will be large blocks, but this will not be centralization."     Facepalm

[hv_]

Nope, there is no such decentralization... that is only twitter based brain wash args by core / Blockstream

Easy to say for you, but have never provided valid proof.

Just as there is no valid proof that increasing the block necessarily leads to centralization.  

But we have excellent proff that the current block size leads to centralization for users.

Millions of new users can't use the blockchain because they simply don't fit in. And to use bitcoin, they must cooperate with custodial services. They have no other option. Coinbase, with 25 million users, demonstrates this perfectly. 25 million !!! This means that half, or even more than half of users, use bitcoin through a centralized service.

Bitcoin is turning into a network of "bitcoin banks", where users trust their funds to them, and the blockchain for transfers is mainly used by"banks".

... used by grey / dark big players

Right, and PayPal, Revolut, ... are the better, compliant side chains now - LN is non-compliant joke here.  As is also Segwit (RBF, P2SH, taproot..., ) that forked good original transparent ( and such compliant & legal) Bitcoin into sth different , darker thingy - now try to compete with Zcash, monero, DASH ...all the illegal crypto stuff.  
'Nice' attack vector for reguators to tear down crypto - btc with them.  Read US / UK FCA stuff here - EU / China all in the same boat imo.

There is only one clean scaling option left - ready & cheap for all to use - but dark / ponzi loving trolling want to keep you out here

Oh, and it can do smart contracts and tokens on top as well, so we could get rid of eth or any other shitcoin here, just with clean Bitcoin.

Why is that bad?

[stompix]

~

Well, I guess something will need to be done at one point. The usage will inevitably increase anyway, especially at the market expands and Bitcoin matures. By second layer, do you mean LN? Would that be a working solution that could work at a large scale while also preserving the main aspects of Bitcoin, such as decentralization?

Yup, LN. There is simply no other solution!
The blockchain has right now 580 million transactions witht a size of 300GB, not that much, doesn't sound impressive except that if we look at the top 3 card processing networks (visa/mc/upay) they are handling 1.2 of that every day! Moore's Law is dead and buried you can't force a home user to keep a record the size of a multinational trillion worth company in his room and add a new hdd every week.

But, again but!, I'm almost sure that nothing even close to migration to LN will happen.
More likely, and unfortunately, as most people are lazy as fuck and don't want to learn and feel more comfortable having someone else figure stuff for them they will switch to web wallets and use those to pay for things or transfer money since those wallets can offer close to zero fees when it comes to transfers between users as they don't have to settle balances on-chain. And ...we're back to square one.

oh..LE:
And Paypal knows this