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

[Wind_FURY]

Do not increase the 1MB block, because it will save users money - this is a BIG LIE from the Core developer.

[Citation needed]

I am starting to ponder that this topic was created to spread disinformation, and gaslight everyone. OR, the big blockers have simply taken the opportunity from OP's complaint.

Plus did GGUL mean 1MB blocks will save users some money because of lower fees? The Core Developers are not stupid to say something like that.

[1715128290]

1715128290

[1715128290]

1715128290

[FinneysTrueVision]

Things are decent right now. Many people have withdrawn their Bitcoin from BitMex which was one of the main exchanges responsible for mempool backlogs. The mempool usually clears over the weekend and I'm able to make transactions for between 1 and 5 sats per byte.

[GGUL]

[

Unless the protocol itself is changed where it's possible to move coin without private key.

How can non-mining nodes change the Protocol?

UASF, UAHF, use client which follow different protocol, etc.

Non-mining full-nodes cannot change the protocol. This can only be done by miners.

You want to say that full-nodes can put forward a condition that blocks will be correct if it is possible to move coin without private key. And it will force the miners to change protocol ( shoot yourself in the foot).  Fantastic scenario.

[Reatim]

The fees are so high, this is terrible:

https://bitcoinfees.net/

Total mempool transactions: 111,140

When is it going to go down back to 2,000 - 4,000 ??

Nothing is certain about this mate because as far as i remember The congestion this year is far BS than what we have in the last halving effect of 2017.
back then it is only taking af least 2-3 days and the transaction is backing to normal but not this year.
we are just in November but we have already increasing the Fees over and over so what about when the Bullrun Comes when the withdrawals and investing continuously happening day and night?

[hv_]

Do not increase the 1MB block, because it will save users money - this is a BIG LIE from the Core developer.

[Citation needed]

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.

Unless the protocol itself is changed where it's possible to move coin without private key.

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

What i meant is combining all of them (increase block size, side-chain, off-chain and tokenization) and let user choose what they want.

Right - combine all of them, why dictating just one (not) from above? ( cough block size)

Free markets WILL find the right way

[Wind_FURY]

[

Unless the protocol itself is changed where it's possible to move coin without private key.

How can non-mining nodes change the Protocol?

UASF, UAHF, use client which follow different protocol, etc.

Non-mining full-nodes cannot change the protocol. This can only be done by miners.

WRONG! BIP-148, also known as the User Activated Soft Fork, actually showed that the miners do not vote. The community who run full nodes do. The miners simply followed, and gave the full nodes the type of blocks that full nodes demanded.

[Karartma1]

Now the mempool is behaving kind of ok, you can try sending your cheap segwit transactions now. I see less than 40000 txs in the mempool with the following average fees

• Low priority
  47 sat/vB ($0.94)
• Medium priority
  87 sat/vB ($1.74)
• High priority
  166 sat/vB ($3.32)

https://mempool.space/

Run, baby, run

[hv_]

[

Unless the protocol itself is changed where it's possible to move coin without private key.

How can non-mining nodes change the Protocol?

UASF, UAHF, use client which follow different protocol, etc.

Non-mining full-nodes cannot change the protocol. This can only be done by miners.

WRONG! BIP-148, also known as the User Activated Soft Fork, actually showed that the miners do not vote. The community who run full nodes do. The miners simply followed, and gave the full nodes the type of blocks that full nodes demanded.

If those funny nodes never find a block, and miners stay on their path - byebye little nodes

nah


2x promise  only did the job

[Wind_FURY]

[

Unless the protocol itself is changed where it's possible to move coin without private key.

How can non-mining nodes change the Protocol?

UASF, UAHF, use client which follow different protocol, etc.

Non-mining full-nodes cannot change the protocol. This can only be done by miners.

WRONG! BIP-148, also known as the User Activated Soft Fork, actually showed that the miners do not vote. The community who run full nodes do. The miners simply followed, and gave the full nodes the type of blocks that full nodes demanded.

If those funny nodes never find a block, and miners stay on their path - byebye little nodes

nah


2x promise  only did the job

BUT miners won't have a demand for the blocks they find if there wasn't nodes that wanted them. Plus nodes demand a specific type of blocks, that follow the consensus rules. Invalid blocks not allowed.

The UASF showed that the miners don't vote, it's the full nodes.

[Vishnu.Reang]

That's a good point but the chances of users leaving the network permanently is small since no other blockchain can offer the security and decentralization Bitcoin has.These coins you mentioned have been there for years but only few are using them until now.

Well.. I agree with you on that part. Also, the problem is that we consider Bitcoin as a currency, when actually it is a speculative investment asset. So ideally, we should not compare it with PayPal or Moneygram. We should rather compare it with stocks or mutual funds. If I want to invest in stocks or mutual funds, then I have to pay around $10 per transaction to my bank. So the fees for Bitcoin is comparable.

[Wind_FURY]

That's a good point but the chances of users leaving the network permanently is small since no other blockchain can offer the security and decentralization Bitcoin has.These coins you mentioned have been there for years but only few are using them until now.

Well.. I agree with you on that part. Also, the problem is that we consider Bitcoin as a currency, when actually it is a speculative investment asset. So ideally, we should not compare it with PayPal or Moneygram. We should rather compare it with stocks or mutual funds. If I want to invest in stocks or mutual funds, then I have to pay around $10 per transaction to my bank. So the fees for Bitcoin is comparable.

You're right that Bitcoin is not your ordinary payment processor like Paypal, but you're wrong in that we should compare it with stocks and mutual funds. Bitcoin is being developed as a protocol for sound money first, before anything else.

[pooya87]

WRONG! BIP-148, also known as the User Activated Soft Fork, actually showed that the miners do not vote. The community who run full nodes do. The miners simply followed, and gave the full nodes the type of blocks that full nodes demanded.

i hate it when people sugar coat BIP148 like this.
a true UASF is when there is a clause in the process about reaching >95% consensus. but when that is omitted and also the risks of splitting the bitcoin network into two chains due to lack of support and disrupting the billion dollar currency for even a short time is swept under the rug, it becomes more of a malicious attack instead of something positive!
during 2017 i don't remember the number of nodes signalling for BIP148 surpass 5k out of the 100k existing nodes by that time and the hashrate behind BIP148 was about 1-2%.
in my view there is absolutely no difference between BIP148 and MAHF (aka bcash) in that regard.

any change in bitcoin protocol must happen only after reaching more than 95% support from the entire network* or not happen at all.
* the entire network is both miners and nodes. you can't exclude either one of these two.

[hv_]

WRONG! BIP-148, also known as the User Activated Soft Fork, actually showed that the miners do not vote. The community who run full nodes do. The miners simply followed, and gave the full nodes the type of blocks that full nodes demanded.

i hate it when people sugar coat BIP148 like this.
a true UASF is when there is a clause in the process about reaching >95% consensus. but when that is omitted and also the risks of splitting the bitcoin network into two chains due to lack of support and disrupting the billion dollar currency for even a short time is swept under the rug, it becomes more of a malicious attack instead of something positive!
during 2017 i don't remember the number of nodes signalling for BIP148 surpass 5k out of the 100k existing nodes by that time and the hashrate behind BIP148 was about 1-2%.
in my view there is absolutely no difference between BIP148 and MAHF (aka bcash) in that regard.

any change in bitcoin protocol must happen only after reaching more than 95% support from the entire network* or not happen at all.
* the entire network is both miners and nodes. you can't exclude either one of these two.

Mostly right.

I d say it even more strict

Any protocol consensus change is not allowed and keeping the Satoshi Bitcoin brand.

Bug fixes / capacity refactoring ( max block size was a temp fix to counter cheap spam attacks)

So all those changes introduce any sort of attack vectors- where legal ones are coming to be the biggest...

[Wind_FURY]

WRONG! BIP-148, also known as the User Activated Soft Fork, actually showed that the miners do not vote. The community who run full nodes do. The miners simply followed, and gave the full nodes the type of blocks that full nodes demanded.

i hate it when people sugar coat BIP148 like this.
a true UASF is when there is a clause in the process about reaching >95% consensus. but when that is omitted and also the risks of splitting the bitcoin network into two chains due to lack of support and disrupting the billion dollar currency for even a short time is swept under the rug, it becomes more of a malicious attack instead of something positive!
during 2017 i don't remember the number of nodes signalling for BIP148 surpass 5k out of the 100k existing nodes by that time and the hashrate behind BIP148 was about 1-2%.
in my view there is absolutely no difference between BIP148 and MAHF (aka bcash) in that regard.

any change in bitcoin protocol must happen only after reaching more than 95% support from the entire network* or not happen at all.
* the entire network is both miners and nodes. you can't exclude either one of these two.

I know what the UASF was for some people in the community, I'm not sugar-coating it. I was merely debating that it has proved that it's not the miners that "vote" to have an updated activated. Maybe some people mistake miner signalling is voting.

[PSCQQSCQQP]

Why are Bitcoin miners not speeding up and expediting the confirmations? Is it for personal gain? in that case that means Bitcoin is centralized and not decentralized because miners can control its fees?

Finally, now someone’s getting it!

It can become centralized at any moment.

[molsewid]

The fees are so high, this is terrible:
https://bitcoinfees.net/
Total mempool transactions: 111,140
When is it going to go down back to 2,000 - 4,000 ??

Last night I transferred bitcoin to an exchange site. The fees from my wallet options are going back to normal fees like before. Then I use low fees to see if the Bitcoin Mempool is still congested, but the bitcoin arrives faster than I expected. Actually, the total Mempool transaction right now is at 2,000+, and I think Bitcoin Mempool is not congested anymore.

[hd49728]

Last night I transferred bitcoin to an exchange site. The fees from my wallet options are going back to normal fees like before. Then I use low fees to see if the Bitcoin Mempool is still congested, but the bitcoin arrives faster than I expected. Actually, the total Mempool transaction right now is at 2,000+, and I think Bitcoin Mempool is not congested anymore.

Only 15 MB in mempool and you can make your transaction with 2 satoshi per byte and get confirmation in 10 minutes (waiting time for one block). People don't know what to do with their bitcoin, buy or sell they don't know so less transactions were made on the network. You can see this falling trend in Unconfirmed transaction count (top chart).

https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#1,24h

[bryant.coleman]

According to Earn.com, the median transaction fee has fallen to 330 Sat/Byte, which is lower than what we had a few days back. But depending on the size of your transaction, you may end up paying anywhere from $2 to $10, if you want a quick confirmation. You can try your luck with lower amounts, but don't blame me in case your transaction gets stuck for 2-3 days.

[nutildah]

Things are momentarily improved in terms of fees as the price has somewhat stabilized, at least relative to how its been for the last couple weeks, so not as many people are trying to get get their coins rapidly on or off exchanges. For a long time I've thought that the fundamental/intrinsic value of bitcoin decreases as fees increase, as higher fees equal less likelihood that it is viable as a means of currency.

I think this time around second layer solutions are in place to onboard regufees turned off from the price of fees -- its just a matter of them adopting to it (Liquid by Blockstream is actually easier to use than LN -- its just missing any sort of awareness).

[hv_]

Things are momentarily improved in terms of fees as the price has somewhat stabilized, at least relative to how its been for the last couple weeks, so not as many people are trying to get get their coins rapidly on or off exchanges. For a long time I've thought that the fundamental/intrinsic value of bitcoin decreases as fees increase, as higher fees equal less likelihood that it is viable as a means of currency.

I think this time around second layer solutions are in place to onboard regufees turned off from the price of fees -- its just a matter of them adopting to it (Liquid by Blockstream is actually easier to use than LN -- its just missing any sort of awareness).

Nice... how to force the masses into 2nd classes   wtf!