Congratulation, Bitcoin has reached 500 GB size hard disk data

[LoyceV]

a block of  3.955mb(facepalm) with only 63 transactions(facepalm) where 1 is taking up 3.915mb of space(facepalm)

yet another example of how core devs have really sh*t the bed on this one and failed the community in soo many ways

I'm not sure what you want Bitcoin Core devs to do about this. Miners have always been able to fill blocks with as much spam as they can fit in, and the assumption is that most miners won't do it, because they earn more if they include paying transactions. And most miners indeed prefer making money over spamming the blockchain.

even in a lean system of such using legacy tx, would be trying to charge 1sat/byte minimum which would fill a block for 4000000sats (0.04btc($202))
yet the way that this spammy thing has been allowed they can fill a block for 1sat/1kb
minimum which would fill a block for 400000sats (0.004btc($20.2))

Your math is way off.

[franky1]

a block of  3.955mb(facepalm) with only 63 transactions(facepalm) where 1 is taking up 3.915mb of space(facepalm)

yet another example of how core devs have really sh*t the bed on this one and failed the community in soo many ways

I'm not sure what you want Bitcoin Core devs to do about this. Miners have always been able to fill blocks with as much spam as they can fit in, and the assumption is that most miners won't do it, because they earn more if they include paying transactions. And most miners indeed prefer making money over spamming the blockchain.

even in a lean system of such using legacy tx, would be trying to charge 1sat/byte minimum which would fill a block for 4000000sats (0.04btc($902))
yet the way that this spammy thing has been allowed they can fill a block for 1sat/1kb
minimum which would fill a block for 400000sats (0.004btc($90.2))

Your math is way off.

a. code is not AI(self coding/expanding) nor does an ASIC make the code.. nor do the hundreds of thousands(of full nodes). DEVS do
if you thing its miners fault.. its not . its the code DEBS RELEASE that allow thing to be soft thus not in a ruleset

devs can solve it by making hard rules like limiting bytes per witness..

dont be part of the madhatter crew song sheet echoing out that its the users or miners fault and devs are innocent. its the devs that write the code and bitcoin relies on code. and since 2017 core have had defacto soft access to add what they like, while treating any other brand that wants to as opposition/traitor devs
(but it was funny to see you do the usual dev defence game. (blaming everyone else apart from devs)

..
b. as for my math. yes i made a typing mistake on the valuation conversion.. awww. petty knitpick

seems a shame(more so shameful) that you are quick to point out my bug of insignificance to the community(my sat to $ quick demo).. but want to hide away from pointing out core devs very significant bug that does affect the community(code bug of code THEY created)

are you really that bias (by being be a core dev suck up) and not want to have them treated as non-gods?
they are human. they make mistakes. and they should be critiqued and scrutinised about bugs THEY CAUSE

[LoyceV]

b. as for my math. yes i made a typing mistake on the valuation conversion.. awww. petty knitpick

Your retry-math is still off:

even in a lean system of such using legacy tx, would be trying to charge 1sat/byte minimum which would fill a block for 4000000sats (0.04btc($902))
yet the way that this spammy thing has been allowed they can fill a block for 1sat/1kb
minimum which would fill a block for 400000sats (0.004btc($90.2))

dont be part of the madhatter crew song sheet echoing out that its the users or miners fault and devs are innocent.

I don't get it: first, you argue hard disk space is not a problem and we can buy many TB disk space at low rate. And then you're complaining that someone wasted 4 MB once. Someone proved a point, good for them.

[franky1]

@loyce
if you want to be some grammar nitpick and 'oh look lets raise awareness that someone on a forum was typing too fast and didnt care about minor details of an  example demo...
.. but then ignore an ACTUAL friggen CODE BUG in the bitcoin network that actually affects many peoples utility of bitcoin.. well you play ignorant pedanticism

you try to down play real bugs but waste more time on being a pedantic grammar knitpick..
.. it shows more about your failings than mine..

as for the point of the context..
its not about the 4mb. its about how useful is it.. emphasis useful 4mb. EG is the space being used wisely.

those memes are DEAD weight
they have no value. they have instead caused other transactions to be delayed and now other people to pay more to try to outbid such dead weight

i find it funny how your clubhouse have for years have said you dont want to see "coffee amount" in the blockchain but happy to see 300k-4mb memes

to me that 4mb space should be used FOR LEAN PAYMENT TRANSACTIONS
because.. yep bitcoin is about payments not memes

with an average lean tx being ~250bytes
meaning 4000 for 1mb meaning 16000 for 4mb
that could have been 16,000 peoples wages or goods purchases. not a single persons MSpaint doodle
or at the average expectation of 2000tx. could have been 8000tx

and no its not "just one" or just "once" meme. there are hundreds of them. thus it needs to stop before it becomes more memes per day/week (causing congestions and fee wars)

as for your "just once"
before this saga.. blocks struggled to get to 1.5mb but average blocks had ~2000tx
so lets just give a few examples of blocks over 3mb lets just see if there was a healthy 2x tx count (4000tx)
https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/blocks/btc/775287 3.35mb 893tx
https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/blocks/btc/775286 3.88mb 230tx
https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/blocks/btc/775285 3.16mb 1083tx
https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/blocks/btc/775283 3.41mb 756tx

and thats just in the last 4 hours!!

.. and you say "just once" (pfft) as if bitcoin has only seen one meme ever

[LoyceV]

to me that 4mb space should be used FOR LEAN PAYMENT TRANSACTIONS
because.. yep bitcoin is about payments not memes

Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree. But I'm also more realistic: Bitcoin transaction fees are a free market, and if someone is willing to pay 1 sat/vbyte to get a miner to include his BS, he can. If that leeds to congestion and fees go up, at 25 sat/vbyte he's already looking at 1 Bitcoin for 4 Mb.

as for your "just once"
before this saga.. blocks struggled to get to 1.5mb but average blocks had ~2000tx
so lets just give a few examples of blocks over 3mb lets just see if there was a healthy 2x tx count (4000tx)
https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/blocks/btc/775287 3.35mb 893tx
https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/blocks/btc/775286 3.88mb 230tx
https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/blocks/btc/775285 3.16mb 1083tx
https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/blocks/btc/775283 3.41mb 756tx

and thats just in the last 4 hours!!

I noticed low-fee transactions piling up, and usually that means someone is consolidating many small inputs. I'm not sure how I can quickly check if there's a "BS-txid" in those blocks, do you have a link?

[franky1]

I'm not sure how I can quickly check if there's a "BS-txid" in those blocks, do you have a link?

at first i thought.. google can help you in like 12 seconds..
then i thought if loyce hasnt found a good source in years then maybe google is not good for him

so i done a 12 second google for you
and again thinking maybe just throwing numbers at you would just get you reacting (usual social club way) of trying to find fault to ignore the context and not think.. so i thought how would social drama queens prefer to be educated about tx size in the mempool and blocks. and so i found the perfect representation even you might be able to see..

so
https://txstreet.com/v/btc

notice how big the southpark characters are waiting for the bus
the bigger they are the bigger the tx weight.. click on the character to get tx details


you can then put the txid into this to see if it has a ordinal
https://ordinals.com/inscription/<txid here>

have a nice day

[seoincorporation]

before this saga.. blocks struggled to get to 1.5mb but average blocks had ~2000tx
so lets just give a few examples of blocks over 3mb lets just see if there was a healthy 2x tx count (4000tx)
https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/blocks/btc/775287 3.35mb 893tx
https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/blocks/btc/775286 3.88mb 230tx
https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/blocks/btc/775285 3.16mb 1083tx
https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/blocks/btc/775283 3.41mb 756tx

and thats just in the last 4 hours!!

It's hard to explain how bad is this for the blockchain... This time i'm with franky1, the blockchain is under attack, those memes are cancer, and the only ones who can fix this shit are the coin developers... Bitcoin was made to be a payment system and not a meme engine. And memes are not the main problem, I want to see how are we dealing with some nasty porn and pedo images in the ordinals.

Consequences:
*A blockchain full of nasty porn and illegal images.
*Blockchain size going too gib in a short period of time.
*Tons of transactions stuck.
*People leaving bitcoin and migrating to other blockchains.

[AverageGlabella]

before this saga.. blocks struggled to get to 1.5mb but average blocks had ~2000tx
so lets just give a few examples of blocks over 3mb lets just see if there was a healthy 2x tx count (4000tx)
https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/blocks/btc/775287 3.35mb 893tx
https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/blocks/btc/775286 3.88mb 230tx
https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/blocks/btc/775285 3.16mb 1083tx
https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/blocks/btc/775283 3.41mb 756tx

and thats just in the last 4 hours!!

It's hard to explain how bad is this for the blockchain... This time i'm with franky1, the blockchain is under attack, those memes are cancer, and the only ones who can fix this shit are the coin developers... Bitcoin was made to be a payment system and not a meme engine. And memes are not the main problem, I want to see how are we dealing with some nasty porn and pedo images in the ordinals.

Consequences:
*A blockchain full of nasty porn and illegal images.
*Blockchain size going too gib in a short period of time.
*Tons of transactions stuck.
*People leaving bitcoin and migrating to other blockchains.

If you remove anything from the blockchain you re compromising one of the fundamentals of btc. Not being able to alter the blockchain. It is not up to the developers it should be up to the miners whether or not they accept a block and there should probably be more scrutiny when they do but you cannot do that because all they care about is getting their cut and processing a block is hard enough. Rejecting it would cost them. You are never going to stop people from putting this one the blockchain and if you ever do you compromise the whole idea of the blockchain. 

[franky1]

having op codes that allow things through without any validation rules is the trojan back door..
those opcodes are treated as features to allow "backward compatibility" of not requiring nodes to upgrade to allow a new format in by node law..

these flaws need to be dealt with and harden consensus where nodes should validate everything. and new features only allowed if majority nodes are ready to validate such new features. as thats the true old purpose of consensus that made bitcoin great

the softening of the consensus rules by allowing these soft entry systems of new format is the flaw.

the solutions are simple. and doesnt need a re-org. doesnt need to get everyone to just pay more.(yep im saying it.. letting the flaw stay open and encouraging "pay more2 is not the solution)

the solution is
a. harden consensus again
as of block 7XX,XXX
each opcode has a rule. where each opcode has its own byte count math. to limit each opcode from being able to bloat KB per input

this achieves multiple things and benefits alot of things for the community, without rejecting existing blocks

[DooMAD]

It's hard to explain how bad is this for the blockchain... This time i'm with franky1, the blockchain is under attack, those memes are cancer, and the only ones who can fix this shit are the coin developers...

The blockchain is under attack every time someone attempts to capitalise on recent events for their own misguided agenda.  And that's what is happening here.  Don't buy into the fear-mongering from those who would weaken Bitcoin.

Just imagine we increased the size of blocks, like the skeezy opportunist wants.  That would make it cheaper to spam the blockchain and more expensive to run a node.  That just opens the door to more novelty images and then the same skeezy opptunists will tell us we need to increase the size of blocks again, because it's all they can comprehend.

Bitcoin has coped with spam attacks before and will do so again.  Buying into the "Chicken-Little-sky-is-falling" nonsense is only serving the interests of those looking to undermine Bitcoin.

[Artemis3]

Of course this is for the future, whats done is done. But action should be taken, even if spamming has been possible in the past, its about time something is done about it. I particularly don't feel like running a node for the benefit of parasites of the blockchain, we do it for Bitcoin transactions not whatever else that are not Bitcoin transactions. Quite simple. Judging the spam itself is not what this is all about, i don't care if it is memes, NFTs, or whatever content the State hates to fuel the FUD against Bitcoin.

This reminds me of Jan 2018, the network was saturated, but improvements were made, and its been quite nice until this happened. And its only beginning, what Ordinals and accomplices did, others will soon follow; and left unchecked we will repeat the eth network collapse here as well.

[larry_vw_1955]

having op codes that allow things through without any validation rules is the trojan back door..
those opcodes are treated as features to allow "backward compatibility" of not requiring nodes to upgrade to allow a new format in by node law..



this achieves multiple things and benefits alot of things for the community, without rejecting existing blocks

at least you come up with possible solutions to the problem rather than just complaining about it. this was a rather high quality post. but it went over my head a bit but it does sound like the original intention was not to let someone abuse transactions to make them arbitrarily large in size as far as bytes go. big bug in bitcoin. no transaction processing system should be without a byte limiter 

[rhodibug]

I wonder if bitcoin would be better suited if the entire network was restructured to work in a SQL context natively, and the RPC system was better designed. See the concerns here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5159374

[franky1]

its not just about hardening the rules of each tx format by applying a byte limit to each possible tx format to prevent wasting space on bloat
(pre-empt knitpickers, no im not saying <80bytes for all, nor have i ever,  just rules that stop 'upto 3.9mb')


its also by not having a bypass to allow a new tx format to slide in without rules(which can then re enter a mechanism of allowing bloat, due to lack of rules)

tightening up consensus again. by needing nodes to be majority ready to verify each format including a proposed new tx format is the safe way to verify the network. as thats called network security

the silly softening of consensus years ago was a mistake devs made.

the point of a decentralised network of FULL NODES is that FULL NODES are verifying all data.

no new unruled tx formats should be able to slide in before majority of full nodes are ready to support the new format.
where said new format has rules of limited byte utility to avoid bloat

[larry_vw_1955]

its not just about hardening the rules of each tx fortmat by applying a byte limiter to each possible tx format to prevent wasting space on bloat

its also by not having a bypass to allow a new tx format to slide in without rules(which can then re enter a mechanism of allowing bloat, due to lack of rules)

tightening up consensus again. by needing nodes to be majority ready to verify each format including a proposed new tx format is the safe way to verify the network. as thats called network security

the silly softening of consensus years ago was a mistake devs made.

the point of a decentralised network of FULL NODES is that FULL NODES are verifying all data.

no new unruled tx formats should be able to slide in before majority of full nodes are ready to support the new format.
where said new format has rules of limited byte utility to avoid bloat

it feels like we're trying to patch up holes in a shooting barrel full of fish. once this one gets patched up where is the next hole going to appear with water gushing out of it? sad that bitcoin got to this state. if the public ever gets wind of this, we might expect a price correction. 

[franky1]

thats why i said patch the holes AND strengthen consensus to remove the soft implementation crap
thus in future new formats will only be acceptable if and when majority nodes have upgraded BEFORE activation to consent to activation (real hard consensus again)
so that full nodes can verify everything and not be a soft system of..
.. old nodes just not needing to upgrade and just letting things though as "isvalid"(current soft consensus system)

rather than just patch the taproot opcode of ordinal bloat

[LoyceV]

It's hard to explain how bad is this for the blockchain... This time i'm with franky1, the blockchain is under attack, those memes are cancer, and the only ones who can fix this shit are the coin developers...

I haven't found the transactions, but if they actually pay 1 sat/vbyte, isn't it just fair game? I don't get why anyone would be dumb enough to pay hundreds of dollars to spam the blockchain with a stupid picture, but if it's anything like NFTs, they're building up for a ponzi and it will eventually die off again.
Franky1 claims they can pay 1000 times less, but hasn't shown an actual transaction other than the one where a miner made a special deal:

yet the way that this spammy thing has been allowed they can fill a block for 1sat/1kb

Bitcoin was made to be a payment system and not a meme engine.

Bitcoin was also designed to store (hashes of) data. I don't really get why suddenly transactions this large are allowed, but even without it, many individual transactions could accomplish the same result: large full blocks.

According to jochen-hoenicke.de, fees are dropping to the minimum all the time. But my transaction with 1.05 sat/vbyte isn't confirming since yesterday. It looks like prioritizing fees doesn't work the way it should.

[franky1]

I haven't found the transactions, but if they actually pay 1 sat/vbyte, isn't it just fair game? I don't get why anyone would be dumb enough to pay hundreds of dollars to spam the blockchain with a stupid picture, but if it's anything like NFTs, they're building up for a ponzi and it will eventually die off again.
Franky1 claims they can pay 1000 times less, but hasn't shown an actual transaction other than the one where a miner made a special deal:

yet the way that this spammy thing has been allowed they can fill a block for 1sat/1kb

loyce.. you know more then you pretend
this is not a time to play dumb

you know that a transaction spending 0.00001000
can just set itself up where the ordinal of 3.9mb utxo and the outputs being 0.00000999 to its own change address. meaning losing just 1 sat as a fee

your groups whole "free market for fees" "no fee rule please" promoting of the fee market has been such for years

there is no fee structure of rule. made into consensus or in block templates..  its just where core devs have guided users nodes to follow some crap math that pushes for fee growth. but that crap math is not enforced by consensus rule of post confirm block validation. nor so by mining pool managers collating preferred transactions, which they can collate and can accept any tx they like even if it pays just 1 sat for the whole tx meaning 0.00000001 for 3.9mb

[LoyceV]

loyce.. you know more then you pretend
this is not a time to play dumb

You know, you should really work on your attitude. Try it.

you know that a transaction spending 0.00001000
can just set itself up where the ordinal of 3.9mb utxo and the outputs being 0.00000999 to its own change address. meaning losing just 1 sat as a fee

I know nothing about "ordinals", but I do know miners love money. If someone pays them 1 sat to fill a block, why are they even accepted in their mempool? Drop them, and include my transaction that pays over 200 sat for just a few bytes!

[franky1]

they do empty blocks. so they dont care for fees as much as you think
they actually like collating data with least sigops
as thats less time between block attempts wasted. and allowing more time to churn through nonce and extra nonce to win the actual large reward
6.25btc = $140k is alot more to worry about winning due to a speed race.. than a $1-$1k in deciding which tx to include/exclude

tx with many sigops takes more time in collating tx's in their mempools.
so they would prefer a mempool of least sigops. and blocks of least merkle tree hashing and sigop checking a data block of

and if they can fill a block that uses only 1 sigops.
but where added bonus for them pre-planning this, can cause a congestion where everyone else then increases their fee rate. then thats a game they can and do play..
also, later when there is not a ordinal to add in that block session. they can get everyone elses raised fee tx's thus they win that way..

its just the same business accounting decision as empty blocks..  where its done to cause congestion to force everyone to pay more, for later blocks

as for my attitude. seeing your silly game you play socially for years causes me to lose respect for you. this is not the first time we have talked and its not like your some newbie.

you spend soo much time analysing social data of forum posts i know your not dumb, so dont play dumb. dont act like you dont know how to research and analyse data from sources.
i know your agenda and what side you lean towards so dont play ignorant that your some unbiased unknown user that has no social club