Mempool if full, but what does that actually mean?

[o_e_l_e_o]

Is the possible reason for transferring funds to Trustwallet as the hype is because of binance?

No, these are all internal consolidation transactions from Binance. And don't use Trust wallet - it is closed source and owned by Binance. A terrible choice.

How often does Binance do these consolidations?

Not infrequently, but this is by far the most they've ever done at once. There is no good reason they could have done this gradually over several weeks or months and saved themselves hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees without backing up the mempool for everyone else, but this is obviously in response to the current market climate surrounding FTX and the fact they are scrambling to make sure they are actually solvent.

All Binance's transactions have now been included in a block, so the mempool is back down to around 50 vMB of unconfirmed transactions with peak fees of around 7 sats/vbyte. I would expect it to be largely cleared out by Monday.

[franky1]

dozens of devs are making whatever they damn well please because other people (not you) have proposed ideas those developers were inspired by.

you say things like bitcoin is politically neutral. yet YOUR politics where you want sponsored core devs to write whatever code into bitcoin rules that pleases the corporate need while saying users of the decentralised network have no way or should have no way to stop them from writing what core devs want.. is your not so neutral stance

LOL.  That's the most neutral stance there is.

yes devs should have freedom of writing code in any platform in any language.. but when it comes to what code gets to activate and become part of bitcoin.. core having mandatory methods to force THEIR whims in. is not true consensus of the decentralised network that meant to prevent forced activations to be possible

The thing about consensus, though, is that it does not care for, or even acknowledge, your ridiculous opinions about what "true consensus" might be.  Consensus is an enforcement of collective will.

yet.. you ignore forget pretend you were never around to have seen, avoid researching..
that in 2017 the MANDATORY activity not of the mass consensus of all full nodes. but a small portion caused the activation via rejecting blocks that did not support segwit. to get a false and normally impossibly 100% segwit flag
look at image
(emphasis its a visual representation of ACTUAL immutable block data of flags in those blocks that anyone can double check at any time)

.. and see:
blue line was the flag sponsored by the economic nodes of a only ~60 economic participants of big corp/farms agreeing to the NYA. it was not the mass consensus of full nodes. it was a threaten to flag or else be ignored..
they reached their 80% threat result in one week.. which required 1 month for that 80% to maintain to then.... trigger the flag for segwit(red) to a naturally impossible 100%, due to the block rejecting of non flaggers which due to the unnatural 100% of the segwit flat.. segwit then activated

emphasis of the near perfect diagonal red line rise to naturally impossible 100%
that red line
november 2018-may 2017 didnt react even 50% of a 90% requirement
rise in june-july(due to the NYA flag actions/threats/worrys) where the segwit flag(red) that went straight to 100%
and this block rejecting scheme to get fake 100% happened before activation. to fake 100% to get the activation


emphasis. rejecting blocks before an activation is not consensus
again because for 5 years you are repeatedly blind to research or remember being told
BEFORE segwit activated. to falsely get segwit to activate


lastly..
everything i said in the discussion with you on this subject of the mandatory actions of not all full nodes but a small part of certain corporate aligned devs and businesses
can be backed up but immutible blockdata and also code...

your rhetoric is backed up by your preferences  and ideologies and fangirlisms of quoting your buddies that agree with you.. and there is only a dozen of them on this forum

many many many many people are peed off with congestion, high fee's and having to rely on custodians or altnets because bitcoin is being held back from onchain scaling by the antics of people like you and the economic nodes that prefer people to custodianse or offramp

while you pretend me and only me want onchain scaling.. you are ignorant of the hundreds of topics on this forum that talk about onchain scaling

while you pretend everyone wants LN
there are only a dozen topics about LN

yes you and your buddies invade other topics to advertise and promote that LN is a solution to users problems.. but thats false advertising because LN has more problems than bitcoin does

[Poker Player]

I want the unbanked to be able to run a node. 

Really? How?

I changed my laptop and I thought about using the old one for a full node but I was looking at some information, and as I saw that it wasn't just two clicks, I left it for later and the old laptop is still waiting for me.

But I don't see the unbanked setting up a node. I doubt they can afford a laptop to begin with. If they had one, I doubt they would use it as a node, as there are much more productive things they can do. The node also has a cost in terms of electricity and we have to think that not all over the world there is broadband internet or flat plans, if they have to pay for GB used there's no way they are going to set up a node.

Maybe there is an easy and cheap way to set it up and that is what you are thinking of.

[DooMAD]

I want the unbanked to be able to run a node.  

Really? How?

I changed my laptop and I thought about using the old one for a full node but I was looking at some information, and as I saw that it wasn't just two clicks, I left it for later and the old laptop is still waiting for me.

But I don't see the unbanked setting up a node. I doubt they can afford a laptop to begin with. If they had one, I doubt they would use it as a node, as there are much more productive things they can do. The node also has a cost in terms of electricity and we have to think that not all over the world there is broadband internet or flat plans, if they have to pay for GB used there's no way they are going to set up a node.

Maybe there is an easy and cheap way to set it up and that is what you are thinking of.

It would almost certainly have to be a pruned node, to keep the costs to a minimum.  I just don't believe privacy and security should be a privilege only afforded to the wealthy.  There is always going to be some cost, but it's preferable if the entry requirements aren't be too expensive.


Not wasting my time responding to franky1 and his "mandatory" delusions.  Literally the only person in the universe who believes it's an actual thing.  Only someone who doesn't understand consensus could come to such a flawed conclusion.

[o_e_l_e_o]

There is always the possibility of a group of individuals coming together to pool resources and set up a "community node". Not as perfect as running your own node, but still better to have a node ran by you and a few friends or your local village over having no node at all. There is also the possibility of receiving data for free via blockstream satellite, and you can repurpose old TV satellite dishes or similar to keep costs to a minimum.

[franky1]

firstly..
for those that dont even have electric or internet.. they would not be interested in crypto. due to no access at all.. (doesnt matter if its lite wallet or full node.. no electric means no access.. thats not a bitcoin problem thats a electric problem)

but for those that do have internet and electric. obviously they can get into bitcoin..(doesnt matter if its litre wallet or full node)
. they would get into crypto and yep IF they WANT they can be a full node.

bitcoin does not require(need) people to use a full node just to use bitcoin. but for those that WANT to. if you have electric and internet. then obviously you can

if you ignore american prices converted to african/asian currency..

and instead look at chinese prices shipped to africa/asia.

you start to see things are not as expensive as you think

yep we as british/american pay high because our currency is high
you soon learn this if you stop buying from american retailers and try to buy from alibaba/ali express that you can save alot of money..
same product. made in same factory your retailer sells a hard drive to you. but at a different price..

those crying that bitcoin should not grow due to price are narrow minded only thinking about their favoured altcoin profits potential if they can convince enough idiots to offramp over to the altnet..

these schemers are pretending it costs $1000 to be a full node.
i can pick up a 2tb hard drive RETAIL for under $70
i can pick up a 2tb hard drive drop shipped for under $40

we are not in the days of the 1990's where hard drives store less than a DVD movie

why is it the same dozen altnet supporters that always chime in trying to get people to offramp to another network

telling people that bitcoin is congested so everyone should stop using bitcoin is not the answer. the answer is to scale bitcoin

NO one is suggesting to leap to huge numbers so dont even friggen try that silly game. but just having some progressive scaling periodically is where we should have been moving towards years ago.
and before you push anouther debunked game. no segwit did not push onchain tx count up progressively.. tx count staled out by the time segwit wallet tx signing became available


and as for doomads delusions of grandeur about his opinions of history..
try to use some blockdata and some actual references that are not just quotes from a buddy of yours that tells you what you want to hear.

many people are peed off with bitcoin congestion and high onchain fee's... telling them to move to an altnet is not the solution

[DooMAD]

bitcoin does not require(need) people to use a full node just to use bitcoin.

Never said it did.  I also didn't ask for an essay on how much you pay for shit online.  I'm saying you want to increase the cost of access to privacy in order to facilitate a reduction in the cost of transacting.  I'm also saying nodes are currently in disagreement with you and don't appear to want that at this stage.  And since you clearly don't have an answer to either of those points, you'll no doubt go off on another moronic tangent that likely makes no sense whatsoever.  

Watch closely, everyone.  Evasive nonsense to follow shortly.

//EDIT:  Yep, called it.  More psychotic technobabble from an unhinged lunatic who clearly needs professional mental health care.

[franky1]

there you go again
your ignorance has again shown up

the 2017 event was not a world vs franky. and i laugh every time you imply that

the 2017 event you keep getting wrong and imply your ignorant and stupid version of events, was not a network wide community node decision to activate segwit.
it was not a majority nodes decided something else, which franky disagreed with

it was a MANDATORY ACTIVATION that did not require the majority of the community to upgrade their node to cause an activation

it was a small group of devs and economic nodes that had code to flag a threatening 'your blocks will be ignored if miners dont flag this' ..and then when one flag was reached its level. triggered the rejection(bias miscount) to then get the 100%(un unnatural level by the way) to then activate segwit

its all there in the blockchain. the data exists to prove this event. its immutable it cant be edited.
heck i even made it easy for you to remember by showing you the actions in a visual form of the flag chart. and colour code the description to make it as easy for you to understand.

YOU fail to use block data of flag events to prove your case all you use is insults and lies.

now take some time to go do some research and go check out the actual version of events. not the ones you are trying to suggest happened due to your wishy washy story you are trying to sales pitch to people..
go on check the blockchain and realise what happened and how. learn what the flags represent read the code that gets triggered dependant on what flags reach which threshold. read it. and learn.

oh and as for your silly "increase the cost of privacy"
you are the one advocating for pruning. so there is no extra cost for you

as for your "extra cost"
we are in an era that 16TB hard drives are a real thing

the difference of a 250gb vs a TB hard drive(10x)
is not an extra cost of 10x the cost
..
people do not keep the same computer for decades
if they did then you would not see the gaming industry evolve. you would not see the graphics design video editing movie industry evolve. you would not see basically technology evolve.. but here is the thing they all do evolve faster than you want to imply.

technology when you first spouted your ignorant version of events outpaced your rhetoric, thus making your assumptions wrong then.. and because it was years of you spouting your ignorance. technology has been evolving more since them making it even more wrong now

in short your rhetoric of ignorance and lack of hard data to back up your rhetoric becomes more wrong the longer you stick with it.

so actually do the research and remind yourself of what actually happened. and stop your crap