Mempool Observer Topic

[NotATether]

Complaints. All I read is complaints and nothing in action. The Bitcoin network is in a state where the arguments for change must be very compelling. It is like complaining why you can't push a giant rock alone. Extensive research is underway on second layers, recognizing that adjusting the block size limit isn't a viable long-term solution. I neither believe that the block size should remain at 4 MB forever, but at least that is tested, and is proved to be quite sustainable.

Change is hard.

If you're one person, somehow you need to pour 14 8-hour days to make a minimum viable product of something that needs to be made. And that's assuming you even know what needs to be made in the first place, as well as how to make it.

Then there's getting people to join the idea. Unless you are already a famous developer like any of the Bitcoin Core members, the only option is to go to meetups like Bitcoin Amsterdam and then convince people that this is an idea worth making. (Ark)

Even when you do have something and assemble a team, occasionally problems appear that are obstacles for it being used on a wide scale (Lightning Network). Or maybe people simply don't trust your software (Liquid).

Occasionally, you will face opposition and even attacks, even if the change is something small (e.g. a website).

Then there's always the possibility that nobody ends up using your software. Or maybe they don't use it the way you intend them to (Rodarmor's Ordinals were never intended to cause a traffic jam but look where we are). Or your commits don't get accepted. Or the Pull Request you made is ignored for months.

Personally, I think many of us here are at least trying to do something, in their own ways. There are many problems Bitcoin is facing besides Ordinals, there's also Greenpeace and anti-privacy spokespeople, which I'm doing my own things to counter. But scalability is not a one-man dev team.

Although you mentioned there is a lot of research on second layers, there are very few people who will actually implement a production version of stuff in papers, and this extends well beyond cryptocurrency. It's part of the reason why specialist engineers are paid so much.

Block size will always be a division among bitcoiners, but the main solution is found in changing things. But like I said above, change is hard. People are unstoppable forces, and are capable of building anything (even alternate Core clients @franky1) but this is seemingly an unmovable object.

What happens when an unstoppable force meets an unmovable object?

[1714263627]

1714263627

[1714263627]

1714263627

[1714263627]

1714263627

[cryptosize]

The thing is, can you provide a written guarantee that the chain won't be split into 2 competing forks?

No, I'm unable to provide a written guarantee.

Thank you!

[franky1]

Change is hard.

change by itself is not hard, core do it alot.. they dont even need community node readiness anymore before they change things.
but specifically change that goes against cores sponsored roadmap is hard, change that delays or prevents cores plans never gets a chance

when you look at core being the defacto reference client and all other brands are REKT and treated as things that should fork to an altcoin if they want to propose a network protocol change, to see who follows. you soon learn how difficult it is for a non core sponsored dev to get core to veer away from their sponsored roadmap and actually allow a change that benefits actual bitcoiner that want actual bitcoin utility.

achowe as been a big implementer of moderation, in IRC, mailing list, github and this forum... he has set job titles of different modules of core to specific paid devs, where by they control, self review and self "force-push" their own code. meaning its not open to anyone to join and take part in but instead managed by certain sponsored devs who have the open access to do as they please, un-scrutinised.

trying to convince these managers to go against their own plans is a endless fight with no resolution and usually ends up with commenters on the github being banned for even Nacking a feature that can cause problems for the community. whilst the feature that causes problems gets "forced pushed" into release candidates/masters by the manager with merge privileges.. self pushing their own code un-reviewed by others.

as you admit unless you have kissed the ring and shown loyalty to their roadmap and sucked enough eggs to get recognition they will add your code if it aids their roadmap. but wont add it if it goes against their roadmap

[mikeywith]

I'm not saying to compete with Visa, that would never happen, but at least compete with DOGE!!! , doge for god's sake!!!! Doge!!!!!! Fudge! 

Exactly what I would do, raise the block limit to kill doge, eth, Solana, trx and every other major altcoin.

change by itself is not hard, core do it alot..

Change is "hard", by itself, there is a reason why many major projects today still rely on Fortran libraries, a language that is nearly 70 years old (probably older than 99% of forum members), you can still get a decent high-paying job knowing Fortran, there is also a reason why many of these multi-billion projects still use old un-optimized code that works, change is certainly hard and the outcome could be terrible if one thing goes south, heck, there is a known difficulty bug that doesn't take into account the duration it takes to solve the first block of every epoch, it has been there since the first client Satoshi wrote, and nobody bothered fixing it, because it ends in a hard-fork.

If you ask the average IT manager how they feel when they touch one tiny group policy you will understand that change is indeed hard, so ya, let's not make it seem like it's a matter of dev cores performing a double-click and wala! block size is now 100MB with nothing broken along the way.

With that said, the blocksize change isn't as "difficult" as many would make it sound, at least not the forking part of it, actually, it's probably easier now than before in that regard, probably 95% or so of blocks are found but known pools, so some coordination between core, pools, exchanges and major wallets operators is not impossible, it's pretty doable and could be done slowly, and safely.

But then again, it's too much work that nobody seems to be interested in just yet, and when I say nobody I mean somebody whose words matter (not the bunch of us arguing on this topic  ), but say Antpool, Foundry, Binance, Coinbase,  Trezzor and CMC decided they wanted to increase blocksize, do you think core would oppose them? if they did, do you think they can actually stop them from forking the network and keeping the longest chain and BTC ticker on all major exchanges and wallets? Would Core want to stay obsolete with a client nobody who matters uses it? how long would it take before all other nodes come to realize that they are stuck on an old obsolete blockchain that nobody mines on?

It's true that if code devs took the initiative and started to lobby for bigger blocks -- it would be a lot smoother and easier to happen than if Binance stated that, but again, that won't be easy, how long it took Taproot to activate? proposed around 2018? merged in 2020? activated near the end of 2021? so 3-4 years for a soft fork to take place, took a lot of lobbying and patience, doing a controversial hard fork is gong to be a lot more difficult.

Maybe it's possible the core devs spoke to major pools about a block size increase and pools denied their request? have you tried contacting these major pools and asked if they would be interested in raising the size to 12MB? why is it always core devs to blame?

[franky1]

With that said, the blocksize change isn't as "difficult" as many would make it sound, at least not the forking part of it, actually, it's probably easier now than before in that regard, probably 95% or so of blocks are found but known pools, so some coordination between core, pools, exchanges and major wallets operators is not impossible, it's pretty doable and could be done slowly, and safely.

But then again, it's too much work that nobody seems to be interested in just yet, and when I say nobody I mean somebody whose words matter (not the bunch of us arguing on this topic  ), but say Antpool, Foundry, Binance, Coinbase,  Trezzor and CMC decided they wanted to increase blocksize, do you think core would oppose them? if they did, do you think they can actually stop them from forking the network and keeping the longest chain and BTC ticker on all major exchanges and wallets? Would Core want to stay obsolete with a client nobody who matters uses it? how long would it take before all other nodes come to realize that they are stuck on an old obsolete blockchain that nobody mines on?

It's true that if code devs took the initiative and started to lobby for bigger blocks -- it would be a lot smoother and easier to happen than if Binance stated that, but again, that won't be easy, how long it took Taproot to activate? proposed around 2018? merged in 2020? activated near the end of 2021? so 3-4 years for a soft fork to take place, took a lot of lobbying and patience, doing a controversial hard fork is gong to be a lot more difficult.

you do realsie in late 2016 core used the open consensus of different brands to vote on their plan. they only got 45% by the following summer..
core devs and their sponsors(NYA) then pushed and mandated the change in under 2 months to get an unnatural 100%


its not difficult for core nor something they cant do. they can easily do it and it wont destroy the network. but they CHOOSE not to, not due to security concerns but dev politics and sponsorship deal reasons

Maybe it's possible the core devs spoke to major pools about a block size increase and pools denied their request? have you tried contacting these major pools and asked if they would be interested in raising the size to 12MB? why is it always core devs to blame?

its core devs that are to blame because bitcoin is not some self writing AI code. guess who has been the sole beneficiary of code control and decision making of bitcoins roadmap for many years

mining pools dont write the code, nor propose different options. they just collate transactions in the format defined by cores code..

please learn who wrote the code, whos roadmap bitcoin upgrades follow..  then you will understand who is to blame

[Synchronice]

Could satoshi imagine that instead of revolutionizing and developing cryptocurrency world, we would upload and sell dumb ape images on Bitcoin blockchain?

Mempool dropped below 100 today and every time I monitor Mempool I see 100, 150 and 200 plus. The transaction fee in Mempool is as much as shown, but you have to pay double the transaction fee. Other days see Mempool 70 60 or below 50 but today Mempool is above 100.

You have to keep in mind that sometimes when a few blocks are mined in a row, i.e. one block mined right now, second block mined 2 minutes later, the third block mined 4 minutes later and so on, instead of one block in a ten minutes, fees suddenly fall. When a new block hasn't been mined for 40 minutes or 50 minutes, many people make transactions with higher fees or use RBF feature with the hope of getting it confirmed because not everyone watches mempool.space every time. Delayed blocks cause sudden rise in transaction fees and then fresh mined block quickly lowers the fees. You have to keep in mind all of these for more accurate picture.

Then there's getting people to join the idea. Unless you are already a famous developer like any of the Bitcoin Core members, the only option is to go to meetups like Bitcoin Amsterdam and then convince people that this is an idea worth making. (Ark)

Convince people by words? Well, ordinals or pools or mining team can convince developers more by giving them a bribe.

[nutildah]

Exactly what I would do, raise the block limit to kill doge, eth, Solana, trx and every other major altcoin.

BCH and BSV are waiting for you.

As for the rest of you're spiel, you're forgetting that blocks are already bigger, up to 4 MB as was proven with the first Taproot Wizards inscription.

Could satoshi imagine that instead of revolutionizing and developing cryptocurrency world, we would upload and sell dumb ape images on Bitcoin blockchain?

The dumb apes are but a small sliver of Ordinals transactions... It is 99% dominated by BRC-20 activity these days. This has actually been the case since May.

https://dune.com/dgtl_assets/bitcoin-ordinals-analysis

[mikeywith]

BCH and BSV are waiting for you.

Not sure if this was meant to be an argument or a joke, please elaborate.

you're forgetting that blocks are already bigger, up to 4 MB as was proven with the first Taproot Wizards inscription.

How did you conclude that i forget what block size is? I literally mentioned that in my previous post , but ya anyway, blocks have been capped at 4MB long before taproot, you could construct a block that large without taproot, it would just have to be a weird combination of transactions, but ya again, not sure what is the point of bringing this up.

mining pools dont write the code, nor propose different

Mining pools enforce the code, they have more power than core devs, pools can use other client versions or even the same core version modified to thier wants and they would sustain it, core devs can't do shit without majority pool support.

But as i said in my last post, it is easier and more natural for core devs to propose the change and not the opposite, and ya its possible that some devs are biased due to some personal benefits

[nutildah]

BCH and BSV are waiting for you.

Not sure if this was meant to be an argument or a joke, please elaborate.

These are both examples of your desire to raise Bitcoin's blocksize limit already put into practice.

How did you conclude that i forget what block size is? I literally mentioned that in my previous post , but ya anyway, blocks have been capped at 4MB long before taproot, you could construct a block that large without taproot, it would just have to be a weird combination of transactions, but ya again, not sure what is the point of bringing this up.

I'm saying 4 MB is already pretty big. If you want bigger, go to BCH or BSV. Ultimately, the point is, even bigger blocks isn't a good solution. It's an easy solution but will eventually cause problems as we can already see with BSV.

[mikeywith]

These are both examples of your desire to raise Bitcoin's blocksize limit already put into practice.

But there is a 5 pages context to that part you quoted, not sure why would you qoute a tiny portion of a huge context, but ya, anyway.

 

I'm saying 4 MB is already pretty big

Yes, using 1980s standards it is pretty big.

If you want bigger, go to BCH or BSV. Ultimately,

I never said I wanted big blocks, I said if I MUST take the action i would only raise blocksize big enough to kill alts not to compete with visa, but then again this argument of " if you want big blocks go to BCH or BSV" is pretty naive, honestly.

I assume, most of you saying this would be repeating the same stuff if the larger block blockchain was longer and kept btc ticker on all exchanges, you would be asking the small blockers to go use BCH if they wanted small blocks.

The way I see it is that most people don't even care about blocksize, they just want that version of bitcoin that exchanges call btc and is worth 40k, be it 4MB or 40MB makes no difference to the majority.

I wonder what would be the excuse when btc blocks are raised some point in the future, are you going to still say it is bad solution and ditch bitcoin or you will accept it?

 

the point is, even bigger blocks isn't a good solution.

Really? Then why segwit? Why did blocks go from 1MB to 4MB if bigger blocks are a bad solution?

[ABCbits]

How did you conclude that i forget what block size is? I literally mentioned that in my previous post , but ya anyway, blocks have been capped at 4MB long before taproot, you could construct a block that large without taproot, it would just have to be a weird combination of transactions, but ya again, not sure what is the point of bringing this up.

I'm saying 4 MB is already pretty big. If you want bigger, go to BCH or BSV. Ultimately, the point is, even bigger blocks isn't a good solution. It's an easy solution but will eventually cause problems as we can already see with BSV.

BSV is poor example of big block size. It's doomed to failed since it's associated with faketoshi, don't care about cost/difficulty of running full node[1] where many decide to drop support[2] and even implement confiscation stealing mechanism[4].

[1] https://github.com/Blockchair/Blockchair.Support/issues/910
[2] https://github.com/Blockchair/Blockchair.Support/issues/1045#issuecomment-1504229868
[3] https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2023/01/11/bitcoin-sv-drops-as-robinhood-ends-support/
[4] https://blog.bitmex.com/bitcoin-sv-hardfork-significant-security-risks/

[BlackHatCoiner]

When someone suggests migrating to another protocol, you promptly dismiss the idea, recognizing that no other network can rival the consensus at that scale. That is the best selling point, and probably why you're here in the first place no matter how you perceive "utility". But, in my opinion, the mature choice is to do migrate. That is a feature of decentralized systems, not a bug. If you don't make usage of it, you deceive yourself. You have the opportunity to join a network that aligns with your perspectives but instead choose to complain about being told what to do.

You can't have both harmony and everyone happy. You either accept the compromises of a harmony, or you find yourself unsuitable to this network under these conditions, and leave.

[Rampagoe004]

I'm not pointing any fingers toward miners, in fact I believe that they deserve to have some extra fees sometimes as a reward for their contribution to the Bitcoin network. The high fees aren't caused by miners, those are caused by the ordinals.

It is not entirely true if you say that Bitcoin investment is only for rich people. Everyone can invest in Bitcoin and if you are talking about losses, I suspect your friend is a trader, which for me is like gambling with your money. I suggest you to become a long term Hodler and do the DCA method to invest in Bitcoin. This is important because those who find success are usually long-term Hodlers.

[stompix]

So short break, back to what this topic was about:



And with this if your plan on saving a few satoshi was to send a 20sat/b fee and then accelerate it with Viabtc
- Viabtc is getting overcrowded by both and legit users and bots
- Viabtc is losing the hashwar right now, less blocks on average per day and they start pausing free tx if they haven't hit a block in 6 hours
(they had 11% over 3 months but only 9% over the last 7 days)
- Nodes are dropping even 20sat/b fees so you might want to connect to larger nodes before you broadcast it

And, on top of all:
- it's Saturday so weekend time
- it's two days before the new year so like almost everything is closed

Based on what's happening now, if the ordi fomo doesn't end miraculously starting with the 8th of January we're going to see some really nasty shit!

[mikeywith]

the mature choice is to do migrate. 

Oh ok let us use this argument against everyone who complains about ordinals then, if you don't like how btc is currently dominated by brc-20 transactions go ahead and migrate somewhere else, how does that sound? Why do some people think it "their" bitcoin and nobody has the right to demand a change?

All of you saying this  would not say the same thing if block increase was proposed by core devs, but when an average person talks about it you start pointing fingers and ask them to migrate, why did you not say the same thing about Segwit then? Did any of you tell corr devs to fuck off if they did not like how btc was prior to segwit? 

Just for the record, I hardly transact on BTC blockchain, I am heavily invested in mining, I never encouraged block size increase, but I find it funny as hell the way some people here think they have the right to change the protocol to ban ordinals and also think others have no rights to demand something else.

The "if you want bigger blocks go to xyz" comments are going to age like milk when core devs increase block size, people will be quoting these comments for laughter.

Btw the way when I say "you" i don't mean you blackhatcoiner I am talking in general terms to everyone who falls into this category.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Oh ok let us use this argument against everyone who complains about ordinals then, if you don't like how btc is currently dominated by brc-20 transactions go ahead and migrate somewhere else, how does that sound?

It sounds fair. If you don't want to wait in the line, you don't push everyone, or tell the doorman to ignore the people in front of you. You just choose to go in a place that is less crowded.

Why do some people think it "their" bitcoin and nobody has the right to demand a change?

Then you have completely misinterpreted me. I'm pinpointing exactly that; Bitcoin, as a network, is not owned by anyone. If you look closely, it functions as a tool that caters to individual preferences. But, if you zoom out, it becomes apparent that this accomplishment would be impossible without a collective effort.

You do possess the right to advocate for change. What you lack is the authority to impose your changes on others. If you are unable to effect change in Bitcoin, the responsibility lies with you for not being persuasive enough.

Did any of you tell corr devs to fuck off if they did not like how btc was prior to segwit?

People who moved to Bitcoin Cash did it. They realized the nature of Bitcoin is being permissionless, forked off the network, raised the middle finger and made Bitcoin Cash. Yet, you (plural) are here, complaining why Bitcoin does not have big blocks.

All of you saying this  would not say the same thing if block increase was proposed by core devs, but when an average person talks about it you start pointing fingers and ask them to migrate, why did you not say the same thing about Segwit then? Did any of you tell corr devs to fuck off if they did not like how btc was prior to segwit?

I don't understand why people equate the influence of an "average person" with a Core developer.

First things first, an average person does not code. Demanding change, and doing change differentiate on the action part. And allow me to argue that doing change is exponentially more impactful than demanding it as if you're a customer in a store; you're not. This is free software. People are freely writing software, oriented towards their beliefs. Most of Bitcoin Core developers have clearly a liking on second layer solutions. Some others did not share the same vision, and migrated to working on other protocols. They are not obligated to align with our choices; rather, we are tasked with evaluating whether we find the conditions of a network agreeable and choosing to align with them.

Secondly, whom would you trust more? A random stranger on the Internet who wants to tell developers what to do, or an actual developer who has been working on Bitcoin since its inception? I'll take the latter, thanks. I obviously trust the actions taken by someone who has devoted their entire life on studying and writing software, and who is closer to the development of the Bitcoin ecosystem more than anyone else.

[franky1]

When someone suggests migrating to another protocol, you promptly dismiss the idea, recognizing that no other network can rival the consensus at that scale. That is the best selling point, and probably why you're here in the first place no matter how you perceive "utility". But, in my opinion, the mature choice is to do migrate.

lets say you live in greece. but greek government want to impose obscene taxes. where citizens dont get to send or receive wire transfers in minutes unless they pay obscene taxes.. now lets say there is another electoral candidate to make laws that allow a fairer system for greece..

your opinion is dumb to think that the current greek government should stay in power forever..and make all the obtuse laws they want, where no citizen has a vote and the only option is to migrate out of greece if unhappy
if you truly think that the Unitary parliamentary republic should always govern greece with no choice of governance. then you are promoting totalitarianism


bitcoin was never suppose to be a totalitarian one government forever system
core are the central point of failure totalitarians

recognise that and stop just echoing the mantra of your forum wife who loves adores and wants core totalitarian to govern bitcoin forever and do what they please unopposed, un-scrutinised, un-protested, before community node readiness

[mikeywith]

It sounds fair.

If we stick to this notion of "you dislike how things currently operate, you go else where" this means there is nothing more to discuss on bitcoin, we use it as is, and wait for everyone to be a millionaire.

Then you have completely misinterpreted me. You do possess the right to advocate for change. What you lack is the authority to impose your changes on others.

But people talking about big blocks are not trying to impose anything, they know neither you nor them can change the rules, they are just having a conversation, you should stick to debating the pros and cons or ignore them, telling them to move else where is the textbook definition of " this is my blockchain, you are not allowed to oppose shit".

Those are discussing an ongoing "issue" in Bitcoin , telling them to go use BSV as if you think they don't know that already is pretty funny, again you here is plural (English sucks where everyone is referred by "you" )

First things first, an average person does not code.

How do you know? What if I point to a person who is a better coder than the average core dev and still wants bigger blocks? Did you not say it is a free world and every voice counts? Why is it suddenly Luke's voice is more important than stompy?

Secondly, whom would you trust more?

I would trust stompix over Luke every day of the week, because despite the former not being a part of the core team, he does not propose censorship and writes a bunch of b.s on thier pool page, or tell people it is not okay to store arbitrary data on the blockchain when he himself stores his catholic prayers on the blockchain.

Also, I am not saying their impact are equal, of course not, but they should both be treated equally, people will accept everything core throws at them, but when someone else says anything it is always "go away, use xyz coin, your opinion js stupid unless core devs propose it"

Now let me ask you a question, if theymos  started a thread suggesting "bigger blocks", would you or anyone else tell him to "go use BSV"?  

What if it was Greg Maxwell?

Do you honestly think 4MB blocks is enough and that we should not go above them?

core are the central point of failure totalitarians

I disagree, just because many people blindly worship core devs does not mean core devs are bad, i think for the most part they are genuine people who want whats best for bitcoin, and then among them will be people are somewhat biased due to whatever personal reasons they have.

But again, blocks have not increased in size isn't the sole responsibility for core team, as i said again, if a few large pools and exchanges wanted to increase it, core will have to follow, it just seems like the majority of the powerful entities have no issue with how bitcoin currently is, and I agree with them, i do not see the need for a change now given how I view and treat bitcoin.

If everyone else opt-in for larger blocks and core rejects (which they can't anyway) then we can blame them, until then, everyone seems happy about it except a few dozen folks.

[franky1]

to even have a system that veers away from core governance requires non core devs to write nodes that have the ability to vote away from core obediance. and populate the network
years of REKT campaigns put core in central control. along with their sponsors(NYA) that mandated to follow core or have their blocks rejected.

a mining pool cant just make bigger blocks. unless the network is ready for it. and with how core have settled in their control mechanisms, we have become obedient to need to beg core to do things. because other brands even if offering good options will never beat cores control mechanisms
cores main aims for the last 6 years have not been to benefit bitcoiners use of bitcoin. but instead add features that benefit subnetworks of middlemen they want to push people over to.


when you finally are ready to stop blindly idolising core devs as gods. and ready to see their management structure, pay structure, sponsorship deals. you will notice they are not as open and honest as promoted. but ill leave you to your own awakening where you are suppose to scrutinise the rule makers, instead of adoring them and letting them do as they please

the biggest failure is when a community dont scrutinise those in control

no one really ever heard of "glozow" before her employment and github key privileges promotion. and now looking at all of her bitcoin core edits of the modules she is in charge of(mempool), you can see why the mempool has become soo affected (not in a good way)

[desarpenteur]

Would you consider it censorship to make it impossible to carry out a transaction where the fee is higher than the overall sum (which would mechanically prevent BRC20 inscriptions) ?