Mempool issue and suggestion: Better if Mempool was planned differently

[BlackBoss_]

Depends on how you look at it. If you want a sustainable, deflationary, decentralized currency, then you should want hundreds of thousands, if not millions, transactions in the mempool, because that's where the mining income will come from. If you want a crappy, get-rich-quick shitcoin, that provides no tangible benefit to the world, then yeah, no need to pay high fees. There's fiat.

Depends on his criteria, definition of a good system as I asked him.

Bitcoin blockchain is not perfectly suited for everyone and if a person needs something that is not found in Bitcoin blockchain but can be found in other alternative blockchains, bank system or others, he should pick alternatives to use.

If the need is a high number for Transaction per seconds TPS, altcoins can meet that need but with altcoin blockchain, security is a big problem.
Transaction per second

If the need is security-wise, Bitcoin blockchain is the best. You can use this blockchain to move coins with very high transaction value, with same transaction fee of small transaction, and with less risk of network attack.

Binance recently suspended withdrawals due to high fees, even if you tolerated it financially. Just another reason to avoid such exchanges.

Using a centralized exchange is giving away control of our coins. We have to accept their terms, their operations and any centralized decision they make.

Reminder: do not keep your money in online accounts New

That's for those who are aware and also use the right wallets. Do you think everybody knows this? The post is not about me and what I know alone, it's for everybody that could be benefited.

Not all people on Earth know about Bitcoin and not all people who are using Bitcoin blockchain know basics about Bitcoin blockchain, wallets, transactions.

The bottom line is: It's not responsibility of Bitcoin or Satoshi Nakamoto.

People need to learn basics to use anything. It's their responsibilities. They need education for themselves and who can help them if they don't want to learn with many free resources on Internet. If they are lazy, they have to spend expensive fee not only for transactions but also for risk to be scammed by centralized exchanges.

If they have time and can use Internet to complain, they can stop such activities and use their time, Internet to learn basics.

[1714257120]

1714257120

[1714257120]

1714257120

[1714257120]

1714257120

[yhiaali3]

I completely understand your point and agree with most of what you said, but the problem is more complex than that, the miners are in control at the moment and there is nothing to force them to change their position.

They are simply working to make a profit and if they are not making enough profit they will stop, so any upgrade on the system must take into account the position of the miners or it will fail.

So the matter is rather complicated, the network can be developed so that miners are forced to take transactions with small fees but if it is not profitable for them they will stop and no one can force them to continue working with loss.

[EarnOnVictor]

If you want a crappy, get-rich-quick shitcoin, that provides no tangible benefit to the world, then yeah, no need to pay high fees. There's fiat.

You simply do not get the gist, it's not about accepting low fees alone, the low fees could be abandoned for a maximum while as miners continue to accept the high fees for fast transactions. But a percentage of low fees must be included in their confirmation when the maximum time of abandonment lapses. This does not stop miners from earning their high pay for transactions, but will only compel them not to always abandon low-fee transactions.

I wasn't that lucky, I made a low fee transaction from Mycelium wallet which does not support RBF, and since I spent entire available balance, I can't use CPFP bump.
So now I had to wait for it to either be forgotten by the network or for the fees to come down. But as anyone can potentially rebroadcast any transaction and there's no guarantee the fees will come down any time soon - it could be stuck for a very long time.

Sorry about that. Can you imagine? This is an example of what I referred to that even the people who knew what to do might still be caught in the trap unplanned. No one is perfect.

Not all people on Earth know about Bitcoin and not all people who are using Bitcoin blockchain know basics about Bitcoin blockchain, wallets, transactions.

The bottom line is: It's not responsibility of Bitcoin or Satoshi Nakamoto.

People need to learn basics to use anything. It's their responsibilities.

You are still out of line again, maybe you should learn from those that replied after your first post. It's not about shifting blame or proving superiority or knowing better, it's about seeing the subject as a good or bad idea, which I believe should be backed with some points. Even in the near-perfect scenario, there will still be a vulnerability, and my plight is about how to make the system better not proving points on whether someone is at fault or not as you make it looks.

A good system would have added the unwise to its mechanism, not because it doesn't know it might not be at fault but because it wants to better and help the vulnerability of the unwise. Mind you, everybody can't know what you know, so don't think of yourself alone.

[YUriy1991]

The problem here is spam of NFT and BRC20 tokens and this should be addressed as it impacts BTC users where ordinary users can transfer Bitcoins efficiently and for free at reasonable fees. Indeed, seeing Mempool clogging up is not a bad thing as it can give miners another incentive to increase capacity and make their Bitcoin network more secure. I think the Direction will be as the OP said, Mempool should be planned differently.

[o_e_l_e_o]

There are two options you could use to decide which transaction has been waiting longer, and both are easily fooled/abused.

The first is that you say each node must keep a list of the order in which it saw individual transactions. Miners can them simply include any transactions they like (i.e. the high fee paying ones) and claim they either saw the low fee paying ones at a later date or even not at all. There would be no way for anyone to prove otherwise.

The second is that you use the nLockTime field in each transaction has a surrogate marker for when that transaction was first broadcast. I could sign a transaction today but back date the nLockTime field to a month ago, and again there would be no way for anyone to prove my transaction hadn't really been waiting for a month already.

In a decentralized network such as bitcoin, there is no concept of which unconfirmed transaction was broadcast "first" which would allow this to work. The whole point of a blockchain, which each block building on top of the previous block, is because you cannot rely on a timestamp or the first block you see actually being the first block which was broadcast. The time a transaction was first seen will vary between every node on the network, and at times like these when the mempool is full (which is the exact times you would want your suggestion to be used), transactions can be dropped and rebroadcast multiple times from different nodes at different times, making it impossible to keep track.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Using a centralized exchange is giving away control of our coins. We have to accept their terms, their operations and any centralized decision they make.

Or avoid them altogether, and go with Bisq.

You simply do not get the gist, it's not about accepting low fees alone, the low fees could be abandoned for a maximum while as miners continue to accept the high fees for fast transactions. But a percentage of low fees must be included in their confirmation when the maximum time of abandonment lapses. This does not stop miners from earning their high pay for transactions, but will only compel them not to always abandon low-fee transactions.

I'll skip the fact that this is completely irrelevant to the part I'm quoted.

Miners don't behave as you imagine, because transactions don't work like that. If by "maximum time of abandonment" you mean "expiration", then transactions don't have that. The moment a valid transaction is broadcasted, it can be included in a block, as long as its outputs remain unspent. It's just the overwhelming majority of full nodes that drop transactions which are unconfirmed for more than 2 weeks. But miners can configure their node to keep transactions for an indefinite time.

[BlackBoss_]

Using a centralized exchange is giving away control of our coins. We have to accept their terms, their operations and any centralized decision they make.

Or avoid them altogether, and go with Bisq.

Use open-source self custody wallets and true decentralized exchanges like Bisq, AgoraDesk.

You simply do not get the gist, it's not about accepting low fees alone, the low fees could be abandoned for a maximum while as miners continue to accept the high fees for fast transactions.

Miners can not earn money, they will have to shutdown their ASICs if mining is no longer beneficial for them.

Usually, to get highest income from mining (not actually profit), miners will prioritize transactions from tip of mempools. However it does not mean they always confirm transactions in tip of mempools, they are able to proceed their own transactions and any transaction they want with low transaction fee in the block they find. Majority of transactions in found blocks will be highest fee from tip of mempool.

But a percentage of low fees must be included in their confirmation when the maximum time of abandonment lapses. This does not stop miners from earning their high pay for transactions, but will only compel them not to always abandon low-fee transactions.

Different mining pools, miners will have their own settings for transaction drop from mempools. They can drop low fee transactions from their mempool or just keep them intact. There are many mempools and being dropped of one mempool is not the end for one low fee transaction. Even it is dropped of from all mempools, the person can resend it and you see the point, that experience will force the lazy person to learn.