Mempool Observer Topic

[FeeBuddy]

     

• fastestFee: 3 sat/vB
• halfHourFee: 3 sat/vB
• hourFee: 3 sat/vB
• economyFee: 2 sat/vB
• minimumFee: 1 sat/vB

[FeeBuddy]

     

• fastestFee: 1 sat/vB
• halfHourFee: 1 sat/vB
• hourFee: 1 sat/vB
• economyFee: 1 sat/vB
• minimumFee: 1 sat/vB

[FeeBuddy]

     

• fastestFee: 1 sat/vB
• halfHourFee: 1 sat/vB
• hourFee: 1 sat/vB
• economyFee: 1 sat/vB
• minimumFee: 1 sat/vB

[FeeBuddy]

     

• fastestFee: 3 sat/vB
• halfHourFee: 3 sat/vB
• hourFee: 3 sat/vB
• economyFee: 2 sat/vB
• minimumFee: 1 sat/vB

[Synchronice]

This is a very rare moment to see, especially after all the abuse that Ordinals have been doing (click on the image to zoom).


I took this image but upload it 10 minutes later and now unconfirmed transactions are up to 5K but 2K was really a very low number and I'm really curious about why that happened. Basically, Bitcoin block could have gone empty. Can someone remind what happens when almost empty blocks are mined in a row for, for example, 1 hour? I remember that some people said, empty blocks are bad for the network security.

[criptoevangelista]

I took advantage of these low fees and finally sold some of the satoshis I bought back in 2022 to realize a bit of profit. I needed to eliminate some debts, and for me, it was a good time to do that. I made a few transactions and the total fee didn’t even reach 50 cents, really good. It's also a great time to consolidate inputs.

[FeeBuddy]

     

• fastestFee: 1 sat/vB
• halfHourFee: 1 sat/vB
• hourFee: 1 sat/vB
• economyFee: 1 sat/vB
• minimumFee: 1 sat/vB

[Cricktor]

Basically, Bitcoin block could have gone empty. Can someone remind what happens when almost empty blocks are mined in a row for, for example, 1 hour?

There's no such thing as empty blocks as a block must at least have the mandatory coinbase transaction. One (coinbase) transaction could be considered "empty", it depends on your definition of an empty block.

Nothing happens even if the miners would mine dozens of almost empty blocks. I would only raise the question why there are so few transactions. Everybody on vacation or on heavy party hangover? Internet broken?

I remember that some people said, empty blocks are bad for the network security.

What could possibly be the explanation for such a claim? Little to no transactions to mine into blocks would be seriously concerning. But that's basically all I can think of (I don't know all, for sure).

[bitmover]

I remember that some people said, empty blocks are bad for the network security.

What could possibly be the explanation for such a claim? Little to no transactions to mine into blocks would be seriously concerning. But that's basically all I can think of (I don't know all, for sure).

I dont think this claim makes any sense.

You could say that empty blocks offer a smaller reward for the mine, which could discourage mining in the long term.

As they are very rare, I dont agree with this claim.



Just saw this in mempool.space

[FeeBuddy]

     

• fastestFee: 2 sat/vB
• halfHourFee: 2 sat/vB
• hourFee: 1 sat/vB
• economyFee: 1 sat/vB
• minimumFee: 1 sat/vB

[FeeBuddy]

     

• fastestFee: 2 sat/vB
• halfHourFee: 1 sat/vB
• hourFee: 1 sat/vB
• economyFee: 1 sat/vB
• minimumFee: 1 sat/vB

[FeeBuddy]

     

• fastestFee: 4 sat/vB
• halfHourFee: 4 sat/vB
• hourFee: 4 sat/vB
• economyFee: 2 sat/vB
• minimumFee: 1 sat/vB

[FeeBuddy]

     

• fastestFee: 4 sat/vB
• halfHourFee: 4 sat/vB
• hourFee: 3 sat/vB
• economyFee: 2 sat/vB
• minimumFee: 1 sat/vB

[FeeBuddy]

     

• fastestFee: 2 sat/vB
• halfHourFee: 2 sat/vB
• hourFee: 2 sat/vB
• economyFee: 2 sat/vB
• minimumFee: 1 sat/vB

[FeeBuddy]

     

• fastestFee: 5 sat/vB
• halfHourFee: 5 sat/vB
• hourFee: 4 sat/vB
• economyFee: 2 sat/vB
• minimumFee: 1 sat/vB

[Wind_FURY]

This is a very rare moment to see,

It could be becoming a little less rare. I have seen it happen more and more this year. I took a screenshot of it and posted it in another topic. I will take more and post them here when those "rare moments" happen again.

especially after all the abuse that Ordinals have been doing

You should probably choose a better word than the word "abuse", because none of those transactions that you disliked broke the consensus rules of a permissionless and open system.

Censorship-resistance is a feature.

(click on the image to zoom).


I took this image but upload it 10 minutes later and now unconfirmed transactions are up to 5K but 2K was really a very low number and I'm really curious about why that happened. Basically, Bitcoin block could have gone empty. Can someone remind what happens when almost empty blocks are mined in a row for, for example, 1 hour? I remember that some people said, empty blocks are bad for the network security.

  👍

Here's my screenshot,

[bitmover]

especially after all the abuse that Ordinals have been doing

You should probably choose a better word than the word "abuse", because none of those transactions that you disliked broke the consensus rules of a permissionless and open system.

Censorship-resistance is a feature.

I don't think  the words abuse in enterily wrong.

I think they were abusing the system because they were using the system for a different goal (data storage) than it was designed to, even without breaking the consensus rules.

I understand your point, that those transactions couldn't be censored at the time. But it looks like that those transactions will become invalid in the future, as consensus rules are about to change to avoid that "abusive usage" of the network (they will add limit to op_return)

[FeeBuddy]

     

• fastestFee: 2 sat/vB
• halfHourFee: 2 sat/vB
• hourFee: 2 sat/vB
• economyFee: 2 sat/vB
• minimumFee: 1 sat/vB

[Wind_FURY]

especially after all the abuse that Ordinals have been doing

You should probably choose a better word than the word "abuse", because none of those transactions that you disliked broke the consensus rules of a permissionless and open system.

Censorship-resistance is a feature.

I don't think  the words abuse in enterily wrong.

I think they were abusing the system because they were using the system for a different goal (data storage) than it was designed to, even without breaking the consensus rules.

I understand your point, that those transactions couldn't be censored at the time. But it looks like that those transactions will become invalid in the future, as consensus rules are about to change to avoid that "abusive usage" of the network (they will add limit to op_return)

But where was the "abuse"? They paid for the same transaction fees that they were willing to pay like any other user who would want his/her transaction to be in the next block, or next to the next block.

It's merely users not liking how other users use Bitcoin.

 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[FeeBuddy]

     

• fastestFee: 2 sat/vB
• halfHourFee: 2 sat/vB
• hourFee: 2 sat/vB
• economyFee: 2 sat/vB
• minimumFee: 1 sat/vB