Mempool fees and Solutions

[NeuroticFish]

Greed is human.

I really can't argue that.

Everyone is responsible for their actions.

This can be somewhat debatable (not everybody is mature, and I don't talk about the 18 years limit). However, let's not go too much off topic, in most cases you're correct.

The reason pooya wants this thing banned isn't to protect them from their foolishness, but to lower the transaction fees.

Well, this is (sadly?) my point too. At least to a certain extent.
I mean, dumb or not, is this ordinals business beneficial to Bitcoin and its network? I tend to believe it's not. And if so, why allow it with so much benevolence?
If it is beneficial, then, yeah, I am wrong and this logic too.

[1714306132]

1714306132

[1714306132]

1714306132

[BlackHatCoiner]

I mean, dumb or not, is this ordinals business beneficial to Bitcoin and its network?

When did the Bitcoin community start evaluating whether a transaction is "beneficial" before deeming it valid or invalid? Beneficial to whom? I do not recall agreeing to any Terms of Use that restrict me from conducting a transaction deemed morally unacceptable by certain individuals or requiring it to be "beneficial" for a specific group. Quite the contrary, I joined this space due to that big "Censorship Resistance in here" sign.

To treat all transactions equally, that's what's beneficial.

[NeuroticFish]

To treat all transactions equally, that's what's beneficial.

You do have a valid point here.


... But I will still continue: how about the feature that allows the ordinals? Is it really useful, compared with the "disturbance" it causes?

[BlackHatCoiner]

... But I will still continue: how about the feature that allows the ordinals? Is it really useful, compared with the "disturbance" it causes?

Depends on which feature. Tapscript? Yeah, it is useful. 

There is a limitation which can be imposed, such as "Tapscripts above X size are invalid", but we're just starting to bury ourselves there. Why? Well, it might put an end in Ordinals, sure. But, it might as well not. The system is designed in such a way that Ordinal transactions can be made indistinguishable from regular transactions. Meanwhile, we will have enabled censorship, or at the very least moved one step forwards to that direction. Let's avoid that, please.

[NeuroticFish]

... But I will still continue: how about the feature that allows the ordinals? Is it really useful, compared with the "disturbance" it causes?

Depends on which feature. Tapscript? Yeah, it is useful. 

There is a limitation which can be imposed, such as "Tapscripts above X size are invalid", but we're just starting to bury ourselves there. Why? Well, it might put an end in Ordinals, sure. But, it might as well not. The system is designed in such a way that Ordinal transactions can be made indistinguishable from regular transactions. Meanwhile, we will have enabled censorship, or at the very least moved one step forwards to that direction. Let's avoid that, please.

Now we start getting somewhere.
I don't know the internals as good as you, but at a first look, a "common sense" size for the script could be for the good.
And I think that you're exaggerating a little. After all, some could say that 1MB blocks are also censorship. Yes, now I am exaggerating, but in order to try to prove a point: limitations can help in preserving sanity. You can call it censorship and you'll be right, still... in some cases it can be useful (the limitation and its benefits, not the censorship per se).

[BlackHatCoiner]

And I think that you're exaggerating a little.

Maybe I'm exaggerating, but it is for the good. I'm pretty confident we can fight this Ordinal wave of transactions by just setting these as non-standard (without even invalidating them on a protocol level with softfork). I doubt there will still be demand, but what if there is? We frequently notice people who are obsessed with the idea of injecting their data in the blockchain.

I'm generally opposed with ideas that delay the problems instead of solving them. That's probably why I'm in favor of developing second layer solutions instead of just messing with the block size limit. Same applies for Ordinals, more or less. If you impose a tapscript size limit, or any other such, for the sole reason of delaying Ordinals, then I'll oppose it.

I agree that certain limitations are necessary.

[philipma1957]

I say everyone has the freedom to burn their money.

That's true, however I agree with @pooya87 in this: it's all about greed. Many of those people don't comprehend they are burning their money, they think they invest it into something others will buy very expensive someday soon.

quite frankly you are deciding it has no value.

who the fuck are you to do that?

I say this in the spirit of friendship not meanness.

I hated Andy Warhol's Campbell soup series back in the 60's I was a kid but I used to go to the metropolitan museum of art often as a family outing. I liked the Italian Renaissance painter and realism. I thought Warhol was trash and garbage.

Pretty loft opinions for a 10 year old Italian American from Brooklyn.

Well I turned out to be completely wrong about Andy Warhol.

So in that spirit I am just saying who the fuck are you or who the fuck is anyone to say it will be worthless in the year 2056 or 2066.

Back to the real issue. Scrypt makes 12 blocks every 10 minutes sha256 makes 1

so LTC/Doge are 12x better to move small moves.

ordinals may be how they are doing this now. They will find other ways to do it later.

the 12x to 1 volume advantage is not being addressed which is why ordinals are doing a job at the moment.

[pooya87]

The reason pooya wants this thing banned isn't to protect them from their foolishness, but to lower the transaction fees.

Lower transaction fee will be a side product not the reason.
The reason why I want the Ordinals Attack be stopped is because it is exploiting the protocol and is abusing the system.

When did the Bitcoin community start evaluating whether a transaction is "beneficial" before deeming it valid or invalid? Beneficial to whom?

From the day Bitcoin was created. And why do people insist on making this about "benefit" and "usefulness" of the garbage? It is abuse. Bitcoin is not cloud storage. From day one it was created to be a payment system with a blockchain that acts as the ledger for those payments. When people use it to store arbitrary data (regardless of what that data is) it is considered abuse and should be prevented.

quite frankly you are deciding it has no value.

It has a lot of value and they are storing the "cure for cancer" on bitcoin blockchain. Is that good?
Now it should still be stopped because bitcoin is not cloud storage

I hated Andy Warhol's Campbell soup series back in the 60's I was a kid but I used to go to the metropolitan museum of art often as a family outing. I liked the Italian Renaissance painter and realism. I thought Warhol was trash and garbage.

Pretty loft opinions for a 10 year old Italian American from Brooklyn.

Well I turned out to be completely wrong about Andy Warhol.

So in that spirit I am just saying who the fuck are you or who the fuck is anyone to say it will be worthless in the year 2056 or 2066.

Did Warhol come to your home and force his "art" down your throat or nail them to your walls by force?
No they made a special place to showcase that "art" and you could choose to go there if you wanted to. That's the same with Bitcoin. We already have special cryptocurrencies that act as cloud storage (like filecoin) we also already have special cryptocurrencies made for token creation (like ethereum) and we have bitcoin that is a payment system.

... and yet people insist on forcing us to change the utility of bitcoin, one of its fundamental characteristics which is to be a payment system and change Bitcoin to be a cloud storage!!!
Honestly, that has to be stopped.

[Findingnemo]

Pay 11 sats per byte not per v/byte--- at the moment this would never ever ever clear. other than using viabtc service and wait for via btc to hit a block look for your tx in it.

Viabtc free transaction is not worth, to be honest,

Imagine we should pay 19sat/byte and TX size should be less than 500bytes then we need to rush to submit txid before 100 queue gets filled which usually takes 90 secs in a situation like these and have to wait 6-12 hrs.

I would just pay the fee even if it's 40sat/vb and get my tx included in the next block.

If it goes crazy high then just halt it for a while.

[hosseinimr93]

Imagine we should pay 19sat/byte and TX size should be less than 500bytes

The minimum fee rate for being eligible to use their free accelerator is 10 sat/byte. That would be around 16-19 sat/vbyte depending on number of native segwit inputs and outputs.

and have to wait 6-12 hrs.

ViaBTC has around 11% of the total hash rate and it's estimated that they mine block 1 block in every ∼110 minutes on average.

[Findingnemo]

Imagine we should pay 19sat/byte and TX size should be less than 500bytes

The minimum fee rate for being eligible to use their free accelerator is 10 sat/byte. That would be around 16-19 sat/vbyte depending on number of native segwit inputs and outputs.

My bad, Grammarly corrected vbyte into byte.

and have to wait 6-12 hrs.

ViaBTC has around 11% of the total hash rate and it's estimated that they mine block 1 block in every ∼110 minutes on average.

I tried a couple of times to accelerate transactions and you are right they mine 13 blocks per 24 hours on an average

https://mempool.space/mining/pool/viabtc

But it doesn't mean that the transaction that is submitted for acceleration doesn't necessarily mean they will be included in the next block they mine, in those two times the TX was accelerated after 7-8 hrs after submission mean while they at least got 3-4 blocks mined already.

[BlackHatCoiner]

From the day Bitcoin was created.

In which criteria do we evaluate whether a transaction is beneficial, and to whom?

It is abuse. Bitcoin is not cloud storage. From day one it was created to be a payment system with a blockchain that acts as the ledger for those payments.

Bitcoin should not be a cloud storage, not because it is somewhat disturbing to the nodes of the network, but because it is extremely inefficient and expensive. But, the protocol is designed in such a way that fundamentally allows storage of information beyond financial. Even if you completely disable everything that can be exploited, and therefore negate every future potential softfork, information can still be stored as chunks of 160 or 256 bits.

Consider the implications of your argument. You suggest disabling op codes or introducing similar limits that permit the "exploit" of Bitcoin as cloud storage but advocate for allowing information storage through other means. This contradicts your initial statement, where the goal is to prevent Ordinals from being used to store arbitrary data.

Did Warhol come to your home and force his "art" down your throat or nail them to your walls by force?

This is a sad interpretation of the Bitcoin network. If you think that we are all "forcing" our gigabytes of transactions down your throat, then you should not be running a node. For a network of that kind to work harmoniously, we need to make compromises. The initial compromise to acknowledge is the equal treatment of all transactions.

[pooya87]

From the day Bitcoin was created.

In which criteria do we evaluate whether a transaction is beneficial, and to whom?

It is not about being beneficial, it is about using Bitcoin how it is supposed to be used.
It is trivial to recognize transactions that aren't. Any transaction that is injecting an arbitrary data into the chain by exploiting the protocol is abusive.

Bitcoin should not be a cloud storage, not because it is somewhat disturbing to the nodes of the network, but because it is extremely inefficient and expensive. But, the protocol is designed in such a way that fundamentally allows storage of information beyond financial. Even if you completely disable everything that can be exploited, and therefore negate every future potential softfork, information can still be stored as chunks of 160 or 256 bits.

As I told you elsewhere, abuse is not 100% preventive but it is and should be made difficult. In this example of yours if the abusers are limited to only 20 to 30 bytes, we've already succeeded in preventing abuse to a great deal.

Consider the implications of your argument. You suggest disabling op codes or introducing similar limits that permit the "exploit" of Bitcoin as cloud storage but advocate for allowing information storage through other means. This contradicts your initial statement, where the goal is to prevent Ordinals from being used to store arbitrary data.

I'm not suggesting disabling of anything, least of all OP codes. I'm saying the size restrictions that existed in Bitcoin before SegWit and before specifically witness version 1, in form of both consensus and standard rules have to be applied again.

If you think that we are all "forcing" our gigabytes of transactions down your throat, then you should not be running a node.

Not transactions, but arbitrary data that is injected by exploiting the protocol.

the equal treatment of all transactions.

Correction: The equal treatment of all transactions that are transferring bitcoin not transactions that are exploiting the protocol and treating bitcoin as cloud storage which is against the principle of Bitcoin.

[NeuroticFish]

Maybe I'm exaggerating, but it is for the good. I'm pretty confident we can fight this Ordinal wave of transactions by just setting these as non-standard (without even invalidating them on a protocol level with softfork). I doubt there will still be demand, but what if there is? We frequently notice people who are obsessed with the idea of injecting their data in the blockchain.

I'm generally opposed with ideas that delay the problems instead of solving them. That's probably why I'm in favor of developing second layer solutions instead of just messing with the block size limit. Same applies for Ordinals, more or less. If you impose a tapscript size limit, or any other such, for the sole reason of delaying Ordinals, then I'll oppose it.

I agree that certain limitations are necessary.

I'm not sure how would this fix the issue (or make the Ordinals speculators less interested in bitcoin network, which is a powerful name), but I see we are no longer that far away as ideas/direction, so I'm fine with your conclusion, for now. And if the issue remains for too long (which is never clear what it means), the community can think on a good solution.
After all, all I can do is emit ideas and hope for the best...
And after all it was a good talk. Thank you.

quite frankly you are deciding it has no value.

who the fuck are you to do that?

I say this in the spirit of friendship not meanness.

I hated Andy Warhol's Campbell soup series back in the 60's I was a kid but I used to go to the metropolitan museum of art often as a family outing. I liked the Italian Renaissance painter and realism. I thought Warhol was trash and garbage.

Pretty loft opinions for a 10 year old Italian American from Brooklyn.

Well I turned out to be completely wrong about Andy Warhol.

So in that spirit I am just saying who the fuck are you or who the fuck is anyone to say it will be worthless in the year 2056 or 2066.

I am just saying what I think. Maybe I am wrong, I've never claimed to be perfect.
And yes, you are right, they can become of value (especially historic value) after some (imho rather long) time. But in my defense, I strongly believe that most of these buyers hope to get rich in 5 years or less (but again, I may be wrong, I didn't conduct a study).

Imho paying 1$, or maybe 10$ for a lottery ticker is more than fine. But if somebody pays thousands... hmmm... in my head that doesn't feel right.

Sorry if my words offended or disappointed you or anybody...

PS. Art's beauty and value are very complicated to decide, and all can change over time due to personal experience(s); at least on that we're on the same page. Just I would not be so eager to put NFS in the same jar with the more traditional art.

Back to the real issue. Scrypt makes 12 blocks every 10 minutes sha256 makes 1

so LTC/Doge are 12x better to move small moves.

ordinals may be how they are doing this now. They will find other ways to do it later.

the 12x to 1 volume advantage is not being addressed which is why ordinals are doing a job at the moment.

You mean/propose moving ordinals to another blockchain? That could be a nice thing as transport/storage, but I don't think that will be coming soon: Bitcoin is a strong name and a powerful advertising. Maybe even the expectations the ordinals will stop working on bitcoin network after a while could make some consider them a good investment?!

[philipma1957]

Maybe I'm exaggerating, but it is for the good. I'm pretty confident we can fight this Ordinal wave of transactions by just setting these as non-standard (without even invalidating them on a protocol level with softfork). I doubt there will still be demand, but what if there is? We frequently notice people who are obsessed with the idea of injecting their data in the blockchain.

I'm generally opposed with ideas that delay the problems instead of solving them. That's probably why I'm in favor of developing second layer solutions instead of just messing with the block size limit. Same applies for Ordinals, more or less. If you impose a tapscript size limit, or any other such, for the sole reason of delaying Ordinals, then I'll oppose it.

I agree that certain limitations are necessary.

I'm not sure how would this fix the issue (or make the Ordinals speculators less interested in bitcoin network, which is a powerful name), but I see we are no longer that far away as ideas/direction, so I'm fine with your conclusion, for now. And if the issue remains for too long (which is never clear what it means), the community can think on a good solution.
After all, all I can do is emit ideas and hope for the best...
And after all it was a good talk. Thank you.

quite frankly you are deciding it has no value.

who the fuck are you to do that?

I say this in the spirit of friendship not meanness.

I hated Andy Warhol's Campbell soup series back in the 60's I was a kid but I used to go to the metropolitan museum of art often as a family outing. I liked the Italian Renaissance painter and realism. I thought Warhol was trash and garbage.

Pretty loft opinions for a 10 year old Italian American from Brooklyn.

Well I turned out to be completely wrong about Andy Warhol.

So in that spirit I am just saying who the fuck are you or who the fuck is anyone to say it will be worthless in the year 2056 or 2066.

I am just saying what I think. Maybe I am wrong, I've never claimed to be perfect.
And yes, you are right, they can become of value (especially historic value) after some (imho rather long) time. But in my defense, I strongly believe that most of these buyers hope to get rich in 5 years or less (but again, I may be wrong, I didn't conduct a study).

Imho paying 1$, or maybe 10$ for a lottery ticker is more than fine. But if somebody pays thousands... hmmm... in my head that doesn't feel right.

Sorry if my words offended or disappointed you or anybody...

PS. Art's beauty and value are very complicated to decide, and all can change over time due to personal experience(s); at least on that we're on the same page. Just I would not be so eager to put NFS in the same jar with the more traditional art.

Back to the real issue. Scrypt makes 12 blocks every 10 minutes sha256 makes 1

so LTC/Doge are 12x better to move small moves.

ordinals may be how they are doing this now. They will find other ways to do it later.

the 12x to 1 volume advantage is not being addressed which is why ordinals are doing a job at the moment.

You mean/propose moving ordinals to another blockchain? That could be a nice thing as transport/storage, but I don't think that will be coming soon: Bitcoin is a strong name and a powerful advertising. Maybe even the expectations the ordinals will stop working on bitcoin network after a while could make some consider them a good investment?!

The sha-256 is at a disadvantage to scrypt

1 block to 12 block

and what ever btc does as 2nd layer scrypt can copy

so scrypt will be able to do 12x the volume basically always better for small sends

it is what it is.

ie the sky is blue
and gravity works
the sun is yellow
it rises and it sets on a 24 hour basis.

So every time Btc tries to steal small transactions from scrypt chains

scrypt will need to fight back

right now scrypt earns over 1.2 million every day
and btc earns over over 33 million every day.

btc is wasting time and money trying to chase down scrypt for small transactions.

btc makes LN
ltc makes LN

it behoves Scrypt to clog btc block chain so that people will say fuck it I WILL send it in LTC


https://mempool.jhoenicke.de/#BTC,24h,fee

at the moment there are around 25 btc in fees in the mempool

A player  can load the blockchain with btc from 1 sat to 10 sats for about 10 btc.

I do not need ordinals to spend it and I don’t spend it since they never confirm.


Plus if i cut a deal with foundry or if I am foundry if they do spend I get 33% of them back.

if you want to fix this just concede no sends of

0.00001000 or less
no fee of
0.00000100 or less

and encourage

scrypt as the small value send.

if you are a btc max guy

Stop.🛑

I simply think the war of btc max guys against scrypt is a waste of effort and money.

but I certainly am a fan of btc for large value.


today I purchased a collectible for 0.0015 btc with shipping 0.00168226

fee was 0.00008

total spent was 0.00176xx

if i was allowed to pay with ltc my fee of 0.0008 btc which is $3.00 and change would have been under 20cents

I deliberately won this collectible to be able to write posts like this.

competing a 3 dollar fee against 20 cents is a long term losing game.

[NeuroticFish]

it behoves Scrypt to clog btc block chain so that people will say fuck it I WILL send it in LTC

I don't say you are wrong. It makes a lot of sense.
I will say something else though: in 2013/2014 I was into Dogecoin. I was thinking that Bitcoin is too expensive, I've lost the train and Dogecoin makes a lot more sense as every day currency. After Mintpal went down I've left Dogecoin and after a few small stops in other altcoins I've settled for Bitcoin. We are in December 2024 and afaik Dogecoin still has almost 0 usage as currency (and this compared to Bitcoin, not USD). Maybe LTc stands better, I don't know. Still... something has to change, I don't know what, to get to that change of perspective. Until then, Bitcoin seems to "take it all" (well, I know it's not all, but I think that you know what I mean), no matter the costs.

[philipma1957]

it behoves Scrypt to clog btc block chain so that people will say fuck it I WILL send it in LTC

I don't say you are wrong. It makes a lot of sense.
I will say something else though: in 2013/2014 I was into Dogecoin. I was thinking that Bitcoin is too expensive, I've lost the train and Dogecoin makes a lot more sense as every day currency. After Mintpal went down I've left Dogecoin and after a few small stops in other altcoins I've settled for Bitcoin. We are in December 2024 and afaik Dogecoin still has almost 0 usage as currency (and this compared to Bitcoin, not USD). Maybe LTc stands better, I don't know. Still... something has to change, I don't know what, to get to that change of perspective. Until then, Bitcoin seems to "take it all" (well, I know it's not all, but I think that you know what I mean), no matter the costs.

I can understand why btc wants to just flat out win it all so to speak.

They do have way more wealth and more mining gear. ⚙️

I wish I could live to see 2060 and how it played out.

It would be nice to be 23 right now. I would only be 60 in 2060.

[pooya87]

The sha-256 is at a disadvantage to scrypt
1 block to 12 block

It is not SHA256 that finds 1 block per 10 minutes on average and Scrypt finding 12. It is the Proof of Work algorithm and more specifically how difficulty and difficulty adjustment is setup in the cryptocurrency that uses these algorithms under the hood. Otherwise there are shitcoins (copies of bitcoin) out there using SHA256 and producing more blocks per minute that bitcoin does per 10 minutes on average.

[Agbe]

I thought the fee has reduced to some extent when I made a transaction last week but seeing it very high this week marvel me. That the high transaction fee will not just go off like that. I know it will reduce but at this time it will take some time. I tried to make a transaction of 0.001 today and the fee is unusual and the transaction fee was 0.000186 which is equivalent to $7.84 and the fee rate is 129.2 sat/vb so I have to give up the transaction for now till further notice. And if the transaction fee persists, it will affect businesses very badly. Because nobody like to do a business and loss it in. Mostly people that are involved in small scale transactions. I was thinking that before this year will end the fee will come back to normalcy but things are getting worse. There should be a solution to this problem by Satoshi and his co developers.

[pakhitheboss]

I thought the fee has reduced to some extent when I made a transaction last week but seeing it very high this week marvel me. That the high transaction fee will not just go off like that. I know it will reduce but at this time it will take some time. I tried to make a transaction of 0.001 today and the fee is unusual and the transaction fee was 0.000186 which is equivalent to $7.84 and the fee rate is 129.2 sat/vb so I have to give up the transaction for now till further notice. And if the transaction fee persists, it will affect businesses very badly. Because nobody like to do a business and loss it in. Mostly people that are involved in small scale transactions. I was thinking that before this year will end the fee will come back to normalcy but things are getting worse. There should be a solution to this problem by Satoshi and his co developers.

Currently, the transaction fees are beyond 312 sat/vB and it might continue in the same manner for god knows how many days. For small transactions, it is better to use the LN as a $20 transaction with a high priority fee is now $18.51. Small businesses would be affected by such fees, they won't be able to sustain such insane fees for the long term and would go for alternate options. The problem is with the hype that is being created by Binance whenever they announce they would be listing an Ordinals on their exchange. They recently listed this meme coin 1000SATS and it has been pumping after listing creating congestion in the network.